Capitalogix

Finding The Path Of Least Resistance ...

There’s a concept in design and transportation called Desire Paths. 

A Desire Path is the path users take instead of the path intended by the builder. 

Here’s a great example. 

Reddit via itstartswithani

If you are interested, there is an active online community forum that shares examples of Desire Paths. It may give you some ideas and knowing laughs.

I am a creature of habit, and even though much of what I think, feel, or do seems to be happening based on real-time choices or decisions, much of that is just a well-worn rut of unconscious behavior.

As a subtle reminder to my son, who just got married, expect many of your existing Desire Paths to change (even if you don’t want them to).

The lesson ... It’s often easier to account for or take advantage of human nature (or nature) than to fight against it. 

Here is a short video on how this relates to your business and tech adoption. I call it Functional Mapping. Check it out. 

 

The video provides additional depth and detail beyond what’s covered in this post. I encourage you to watch it for a more complete perspective.

Understanding the natural path for both technology and people makes it easier to understand and anticipate the capabilities, constraints, and milestones that define your path forward.   That means you actually have to understand the different types of users and what they expect to do. Here’s a diagram that explains how we build AI-enabled applications.

Each stage is really about the opportunity to scale desired capabilities and automation.

It isn’t really about building the technology; instead, it is about supporting the desire.

You don’t have to get it right. You just have to create momentum in the right direction.   Meaning ... if you can anticipate what is coming, you don’t have to build it. Instead, you should figure out where you want to build or create something that will move things in the right direction to help make that happen or benefit from it when it happens.

You’ve probably heard me talk about how Capabilities become Prototypes. Then, Prototypes become Products. And, ultimately, Products become Platforms.

This model is fractal. That means it works on many levels of magnification or iteration.

What first looks like a product is later seen as a prototype for something bigger.

SpaceX’s goal to get to Mars feels like their North Star right now ... but once it’s achieved, it becomes the foundation for new goals.

This Framework helps you validate capabilities before sinking resources into them. 

It helps you anticipate which potential outcomes you want to accelerate. Rather than simply figuring out the easiest next step … you have to figure out which path is the best next step to your desired outcome.

The world is changing fast! Hope you’re riding the wave instead of getting caught in the riptide!

Onwards.

The World Is In $100 Trillion Dollars of Debt ...

The world is swimming in debt ... well, to be more specific ... the world's governments are swimming in debt — $100 Trillion of it. 

via Barrons

To put that in perspective, here's an illustration to give you a sense of the enormity of that number.

via Barrons

The U.S. accounts for just over 34% of that number. Meanwhile, I remember writing about the Republican National Convention marking the moment our national debt crossed the $16 Trillion level in 2012. 

To put the current number in context, if our national debt were divided among individuals, we'd each owe more than $100K ... and if the ten wealthiest people donated their entire fortunes, we'd only have covered about 5%. 

The concept of "Debt" can be confusing to a layman. Most people understand what it means when they take on debt with a local bank, but it can be harder to understand the role debt plays in global economics.

Compounding the confusion, the implications of debt change on a macro level. 

Many worry that our "excessive" government debt levels impact economic stability, the strength of our currency, and unemployment. The national debt can only be reduced through five mechanisms: increased taxation, reduced spending, debt restructuring, monetization of the debt, or default. 

The idea behind our current global debt structure is that if two nations are mutually obligated and dependent on each other, they are less likely to go to war. And that has held relatively true so far. Of course, it's not a perfect system (and it could break down), but it's working better than previous systems (such as the balance of power).

In some ways, it's fake money, so our debts don't seem insurmountable or fatal. Our economy is so reliable that we're allowed to continue borrowing. Debt is an integral part of the economic machine - it can be argued that we wouldn't have money without debt. 

Ray Dalio created a simple (but not simplistic) and relatively easy-to-follow 30-minute animated video that answers the question, "How does the economy really work?"  Click to watch.

via Ray Dalio

The global economy has grown enormously during the last 50 years as developing nations prosper. The average global GDP per capita has gone from ~$1000 to over $10,000 in my lifetime.

So, it makes sense that the amount of debt is also increasing with the size of the money supply required to conduct all the transactions in the global economy.

But, even though you may not need to be immediately worried about that number, I still think it's worth trying to put it in context. 

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 trillion dollars. 

via AskOpinion

First, 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. If you have a million dollars, you can do that for approximately twelve days. With a billion dollars, you can do that for over 31 years. With a trillion dollars, you can do that for 31,000+ years. That means it would take over 300 thousand years to spend the global public debt at that rate. 

I'm sure many of you make over six figures a year. But, it would still take you 10 million years - if you spent none of it - to make $1 trillion, let alone $100 trillion. 

Let's try explaining it through time. Fifty thousand seconds is just under 14 hours. A million seconds was 11 days ago. A billion seconds ago from today? 1992. One trillion seconds is slightly over 31,688 years. That would have been around 29,679 B.C., which is roughly 24,000 years before the earliest civilizations began to take shape. 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. 

Eames Office via BetterExplained

Hopefully, that was disturbing and helpful!

Futurism and The Epidemic of Impossible Statistics

I can’t pretend this is a new phenomenon, but I also can’t pretend it’s not becoming a pet peeve of mine. 

If you’ve been following me for any amount of time, you’ll know I love the future, and I love random statistics. If I’m not talking about AI or entrepreneurship, it’s generally because I’m sharing some interesting chart or statistic. 

At the intersection of my two loves comes a pretty severe issue ...

Bullshit statistics. 

Futurists can’t help themselves. If you repeat something enough times, it begins to feel true. This is a key part of the reality distortion field that surrounds charismatic leaders. Their “functional fiction” becomes useful - not because it’s grounded in fact, but because it enables us to envision what’s possible and work to make it real.

In their defense, nobody minds if you talk about the future broadly. However, a problem arises when directional belief masquerades as fact or science. For example, if someone has thought about something many times, there is a tendency to confidently discuss or project exponential growth with specific timelines and metrics (rather than broadly discussing what will eventually come).

This tendency can make intelligent people seem delusional (or at least out of touch).

Elon Musk is a great example. While he has undeniably been a significant force for innovation and progress in the world, here are a few of the outlandish claims he’s made recently.

• “I think by 2040, probably there are more humanoid robots than there are people.”
• “I feel comfortable saying that AI is getting 10 times better each year.”
• Or, his 70% chance of moving to Mars, and his expectation of colonization starting in 2029.

Some of those may be true, and all of them might turn out to be right ... but they are still wild-ass guesses.

Elon is by no means the only one doing this. 

I routinely make up statistics to help me simplify or understand things better. The key is to acknowledge these “shortcuts” are still essentially educated guesses. Here’s an example. When I imagine how advanced AI will become by the end of my lifetime, I have to consider my current age (and expected lifespan) and how rapidly AI is improving. If I assign the number “100” to how good AI will be at the end of my life, what value would I assign to it now? Turns out, I’d give it a value of three. Of course, there’s always the possibility I could get hit by a bus tomorrow. I’m not a scientist. I haven’t done detailed research about chips or when we move to quantum computing. Realistically, I don’t have to. The precise numbers aren’t what matters here. I don’t take that statistic literally. It’s directional, and it gives a sense of the rate of change and the velocity of invention. In that sense, even though it isn’t factual, it’s useful.

I’d say any serious scientist knows that you can’t reliably predict the future with that level of precision – but it doesn’t take a scientist to know that. 

First, the statistic or shortcut has to pass a simple “sniff” test. Then, you have to account for likely bottlenecks or constraints. Too many of these crazy estimates assume almost infinitely scaling results with no setbacks or limitations in materials or energy. 

Don’t underestimate the value of a good rule-of-thumb or mental model. Moore’s Law is a great example of that. It stemmed from an observation and prediction about the semiconductor industry made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965. A grossly simplified version is that computing power doubles every two years. That has held true for more than 50 years.

I have two Gaping Void illustrations that express fundamental truths about this: “First, Bring Order to Chaos” and “Wisdom Comes from Finer Distinctions.”

Here’s the reality. The future is exciting ... and it’s coming fast. In many ways, it will likely be bigger and cooler than you could have imagined. In other ways, it will radically underperform your expectations. 

I can say that not because I know any more than you, but because I’m focused on what doesn’t change. We’ve had many periods of innovation ... each bigger than the last. It’s likely there will be aspects of the next 20 years no one can predict. But, we know what innovation looks like. 

We’ve been here before. 

As a reminder, if it sounds too good to be true ... there’s a good chance it is. Yet, to pretend there’s not a chance outlandish claims will come true would be to make too precise a claim again. 

In many ways, predicting how your business or product will change is much easier than how the world will change.

The best way to predict the future is to create it - and the most effective way to create it is to focus on the elements within your control.

While it’s important to play an exponential game ... you can start “locally”. 

Food for thought! 

Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading - October 19th, 2024

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

Lighter Links:

• Pope Francis and the Vatican Just Created an “AI Bible” Reshaping Faith in the Digital Age. (TheBrighterSide)
• People Think They Already Know Everything They Need to Make Decisions. (ArsTechnica)
• 8 Expert Tips for Getting Started With NotebookLM. (Google)
• Chinese Humanoid Robot is the 'Fastest in the World' Thanks to One Surprising Addition. (UniladTech)
• Copy of US Constitution Found in Filing Cabinet Sells for $9M. So, Somebody Does Still Value the Constitution. (BBC)

 

Trading Links:

• OpenAI's Advantage Over Rival AI Companies Vanishes, Report Finds. (Fortune)
• Nvidia’s Shocking Truth vs. The Dot-Com Bubble. (JoshBelanger)
• The Next Wave of AI Won’t Be Driven by LLMs. Here’s What Investors Should Focus on Instead. (Fortune)
• Amazon Announces Nuclear Power Deals as Tech Giants Scramble for More Clean Energy. (GeekWire)
• ForecastTrader – Futures-Based Prediction Market for the Presidential Election and Other Things. (ForecastTrader)

 

Old School Wisdom Isn't Always So Wise ...

When I first got interested in trading, I relied on traditional sources and old-school market wisdom. For example, I studied the Stock Trader’s Almanac.

While there is some real wisdom in some of those sources, most might as well be horoscopes or Nostradamus-level predictions. Throw enough darts, and one might hit the bullseye.

Traders love patterns ... from head-and-shoulders, to Fibonacci sequences, and even Elliot Wave Theory.

Here’s an example from Samuel Benner, an Ohio farmer. In 1875, he released a book titled “Benner’s Prophecies: Future Ups and Downs in Prices,” where he shared the often-referenced chart called the Benner Cycle. Some claim it’s been accurately predicting market fluctuations for over 100 years. Let’s check it out.

 

 

Here’s what it gets right ... markets go up and down ... and that cycle continues. Consequently, if you want to make money, you should buy low and sell high ... It’s hard to call that a competitive advantage.

Mostly, you’re looking at vague predictions with +/- 2-year error bars on a 10-year cycle.

However, it was close to the dotcom bust and the 2008 crash ... so even if you sold a little early, you’d have been reasonably happy with your decision to follow the cycle.

We use a form of cycle analysis in our models … but it’s more rigorous, nuanced, and scientific than the Benner Cycle. The trick is figuring out what to focus on – and what to ignore.

Just as humans are good at seeing patterns, even where there are none ... they tend to see cycles that aren’t anything but coincidences.

In trading, “alpha” measures the excess return created by manager skill rather than luck or movement of the underlying market. As you might guess, both “art” and “science” are involved in that calculation. Profitable traders want to believe it’s a sign of their skill, while losing traders prefer to blame luck.

Nicholas Nassim Taleb pointed out in “Fooled by Randomness” that many successful traders, even those with decades-long careers, were likely more lucky than skillful. They just happened to be at the right firm, on the right trading desk, at the right time.

That said, I believe technology, algorithms, and AI are evolving into Amplified Intelligence - the ability to make better decisions, take smarter actions, and continually improve performance. We’re about to experience a huge asymmetric advantage ... those who understand technology and science (math, statistics, game theory, etc.) will have a real edge over those relying on more primitive techniques or gut instinct.

In a sense, this is another type of cycle.

The best traders I know believe that “smart money” takes “dumb money”. While it may sound harsh, this cycle has played out repeatedly over time. Cutting-edge science can seem like magic to those who don’t understand it. However, these capabilities give a significant advantage to those who possess and use them.

I believe the gap between smart and dumb money is widening. That represents a massive opportunity for those who recognize what’s coming.

This is a reminder that just because an AI chat service recommended something that made money, doesn’t make it a good recommendation. Those models may do some things well ... but they also might just have made a lucky prediction at an opportune time. Making scientific or mathematically rigorous market predictions probably isn’t an area to trust ChatGPT or one of its rivals (at least if you don’t understand how to ask AI to do something that you understand and believe gives you a real edge).

If you don’t know what your edge is, then you don’t really have one. This becomes even more important in the age of AI. It doesn’t matter if AI does what it’s supposed to unless you believe it is doing what you want. 

Be careful out there.

Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading - October 6th, 2024

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

Lighter Links:

• How to Use ChatGPT to Brainstorm Anything. (Geeky-Gadgets)
• Why We Love Moo Deng — The Science Behind Our Obsession With Baby Animals. (Forbes)
• Try Perplexity for Search🔥. (WonderTools)
• These US Cities Hit 110 Degrees in October – Get Used to It. (Vox)
• Israel's Paradox of Defeat – How the Country's Military Success Is Producing Political Failure. (ForeignAffairs)

 

Trading Links:

• Why OpenAI Burns Through Billions. (Axios)
• AI Training Data Dilemma: Legal Experts Argue for 'Fair Use'. (Forbes)
• Amazon's New AI Chatbot Could Change How Employees Work Forever. (GreyJournal)
• America's One-Two Punch of Good Economic News. (Axios)
• Mark Cuban Warns the U.S. Must Win the AI Race ‘Or We Lose Everything’. (Fortune)

 

Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading - September 22nd, 2024

 

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

Lighter Links:

• Ex-Pentagon Official Discusses Government's Hunt for UFOs: 'I Have to Be Careful What I Say'. (People)
• The Russian Bot Army that Conquered Online Poker. (LongReads)
• The Mr. Beast Memo is a Guide to the Gen Z Workforce. (Kyla)
• The 7 ‘House Rules’ of Marriage—By a Psychologist. (Forbes)
• Scientists May Soon Be Able to Translate the Languages Plants Use to Communicate. (BGR)

 

Trading Links:

• How Intel Fell From Global Chip Champion to Takeover Target. (Wall Street Journal)
• The Top 100 Gen AI Consumer Apps. (A16Z)
• Breaking Down OnlyFans’ Stunning Economics. (MatthewBall)
• How the Super-Rich Signal Their Wealth to Each Other. (WSJ)
• Peter Thiel Predicts the 2024 Election Won't Be Close: 'One Side is Simply Going to Collapse'. (Insider)

 

The Secret To Competing Against Tech Giants

The last time I drove in New York City traffic, I complained that "I didn’t understand why people came here" because it was too crowded.

That reminds me of one of Yogi Berra’s famous quotes. “Nobody goes there anymore because it’s too crowded.”

He said that about a famous restaurant where he used to work.

The same is true in business. Opportunity draws a crowd ... but the best opportunities are often in areas of less competition.

For entrepreneurs, oversaturation can turn products into commodities, reducing profit potential. Conversely, many shy away when a challenge seems insurmountable, creating unexpected opportunities for those willing to take the risk.

As an entrepreneur, I’m drawn to projects others might dismiss as science fiction. These are the challenges that often lead to the most groundbreaking and rewarding outcomes.

Moonshot Projects

Moonshot projects offer a unique advantage. While they may seem daunting, their audacious nature often means less competition and greater potential for transformative impact and extraordinary profits.

A moonshot project is a highly ambitious, transformative endeavor that seeks to solve a significant problem or create a revolutionary innovation. These projects are characterized by:

• Audacious Goals: They aim for breakthroughs that seem nearly impossible to achieve.
• Disruptive Impact: They strive to create solutions that are vastly superior to existing offerings, often by introducing entirely new paradigms.
• High-Risk, High-Reward: These projects embrace the potential for failure in pursuit of groundbreaking results.
• Long-Term Focus: They prioritize long-term impact over short-term gains.
• Technological Advancements: They leverage cutting-edge or even nascent technologies.
• Paradigm Shifts: They challenge conventional wisdom and industry norms.

Moonshot projects are inherently challenging. They demand significant resources, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a willingness to venture into the unknown. This perceived difficulty often deters potential competitors, creating a unique opportunity for those willing to take the risk.

When successful, they push the boundaries of what is possible and redefine the landscape of their respective fields.

In part, that is why a 10X mindset is particularly well-suited for Moonshot projects. By aiming for a tenfold improvement over existing solutions, you’re essentially operating in a space with little to no competition or opposition. This allows you to redefine the rules of the game and establish a sustainable competitive advantage.

Our strategy of creating a unique, sustainable competitive advantage aligns perfectly with the Moonshot approach. By choosing to play a different game (with an asymmetric edge), we’re not just competing; we’re fundamentally changing the playing field.

I’m not interested in going head-to-head with tech giants on their turf. Instead, the goal is to carve out our own niche, focused on using our unique abilities to push boundaries and extend our edge. Being slightly ahead of the competition can be a powerful attractor. It often leads potential competitors to seek collaboration rather than confrontation. They might approach you with ideas, money, or opportunities, aspiring to share in your advanced position and capabilities. This dynamic can create unexpected partnerships and accelerate progress in ways that benefit everyone involved.

When interviewing potential team members, I often share a crucial insight: if you’re seeking a job where you work 9-to-5 solving problems so you can go home feeling satisfied, this might not be the right fit.

We tackle challenges of a different magnitude. Our projects rarely have quick solutions. Instead, we focus on making steady progress towards ambitious goals.

I sometimes joke that our motto should be: “We suck less.” Nevertheless, the underlying truth is more profound. It’s about understanding your ultimate objective and recognizing that each step moves you in the right direction, no matter how small.

This approach aligns with our belief in playing a different game. We don’t just compete; we redefine the rules of engagement, creating our own metrics for success and pushing boundaries in ways that traditional thinking often overlooks. Kind of like this quote:

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.” - Thomas Edison

It doesn’t make sense to challenge a bigger and better-funded competitor in an area where they have an asymmetric advantage. In other words, don’t compete with giants at their own game.

Choose to play a game you expect to win.

Playing a different game is a theme at Capitalogix. We believe that you control the game you’re playing, the rules, how you keep score, and even how you evaluate success. These things inform where to spend time, where to invest money, and even what looks like an opportunity to you. 

Wouldn’t you rather compete in areas where you can create a unique, sustainable competitive advantage? Personally, I want to invest in the things that extend the edges that let us win.

Why? Because ... Mediocrity Is Expensive!

What you lack in size or computer power, you can make up for in creativity, agility, and innovation. 

We sought to create a niche in the investment industry, not through computing power, but through unique approaches to age-old problems. We use AI and data science to enhance decision-making. 

We have an incredibly narrow and consistent focus. Within that area, we are willing to take on problems others avoid and pursue goals that others say are impossible. 

Our niche limits risk and lets us fail faster ... and learn faster. This allows us to take confident action while others are tentative. 

Most big companies - and most of our competitors - are afraid to be wrong. They have to protect their infrastructure, cash cows, and short-term performance metrics. It makes sense (from their perspective) that playing it safe means they’re secure. - but that’s not how it works. 

You can’t challenge the status quo when you are the status quo. 

10x Improvement Is Often Easier To Achieve Than 10%

 

Astro Teller via TED

"In 1962 at Rice University, JFK told the country about a dream he had, a dream to put a person on the moon by the end of the decade.The eponymous moonshot. No one knew if it was possible to do, but he made sure a plan was put in place to do it if it was possible.That's how great dreams are. Great dreams aren't just visions, they're visions coupled to strategies for making them real." - Astro Teller

Incremental change is hard - it’s finding new ways to do the same thing, and you often end up competing in very red oceans - saturated markets where you’re competing on price.

Moonshots sound harder, but you create your own niche, and the constraints of a new idea force creativity and energy. If you’re going after a goal that no one has accomplished before, it’s impossible to be in a red ocean, and it’s easier to mobilize a team around something exciting and new than decreasing some arbitrary metric by 2%. 

 

There are a couple of important lessons to keep in mind when pursuing the unknown.

• Forget what you know - self-reported “experts” are limited by their worldview. If you’re trying to get a different result, you won’t do it by playing by the same rules your predecessors followed. Heuristics are great for making life easier - but they’re very limiting when trying to create something new. 
• Attack the hardest problems first - your biggest problems are your biggest opportunities. If you don’t deal with the big problems now, you’ll never get around to it, and you’ll waste time, energy, and potentially realize you have to pivot much too late.  
• Be comfortable being uncomfortable - Most people find failure taboo, and they’re deathly afraid of it. Tony Robbins talks about our tendency to avoid pain more actively than we pursue pleasure, and it’s true in business. But failure is a part of business. The people I consider most successful got there through incredible pain tolerance and increasingly intense problems that they continued to conquer. 
• Have a short memory for pain - Focus on the gain, not the pain. People often focus on not having enough money, not enough time, or simply not having enough. That scarcity mindset is dangerous and can lead to getting lost in pain and fear. Acknowledging the pain/fear and moving forward from a place of abundance and opportunity helps create opportunities. 

As well, a clear identity is important. You have to understand what you’re pursuing and how you want to attack the problem. At Capitalogix, we’ve gotten very in tune with our goals. 

We invent techniques that identify and adapt to what happens in markets. We apply the lessons learned from past experiences, data science breakthroughs, and hard work to eliminate the fear, greed, and discretionary mistakes that are the downfall of most traders and decision-makers.

Small businesses don’t have a monopoly on these mindsets and these opportunities, but companies like Y Combinator, X(and no, I don't mean the company formerly known as Twitter), or HeroX are few and far between ... Elon Musk is famous for moonshots like Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, Xai, etc. Google and Microsoft pursue moonshots as well. 

Good news ... the future is big enough for them and you. 

Choose something that lights you up and leverages what you already know and who you already are.

So what’s your moonshot?

The Cities Of The Future

Studying historical changes in human population trends offers valuable insights into the factors that have propelled or hindered human development throughout time.

From ancient civilizations to modern metropolises, population dynamics have influenced everything from economic prosperity to social structures.

 

A Window Into Our Past Gives Us a Glimpse at Our Future.

By studying this critical aspect of human history, we can gain valuable insights into the past, present, and future of societies.

Population growth is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon with far-reaching implications. It offers a fascinating glimpse into the demographic trends that have shaped our world and continue to influence our trajectory.

Historically, human populations grew steadily but relatively slowly ... until something changed that. 

Scientists estimate that humans have existed for over 130,000 years. However, it took until 1804 for us to reach 1 Billion. We doubled that population by 1927 (123 years later) and then doubled it again only 47 years later (which was 1974). 

Looking back, early population growth was driven by the agricultural revolution. Since 1804, the Industrial Revolution, health and safety advances, along with technology, have significantly improved quality of life, spurring the rapid population growth. Here is a quick overview of some of the key factors.

Shaping the Future

It’s hard to predict some things accurately. So, one goal in data science is to figure out what we can “know” in order to “guess” less.

Population growth is a prime example. One of the easiest ways to predict how many 60-year-olds there will be in 40 years is to look at how many 20-year-olds there are today. Obviously, the number won’t be exact, but it’s a pretty good head start.

This principle of using known data to make educated predictions applies to many aspects of future planning, including urban development and resource allocation. By leveraging current demographic information, we can better prepare for the challenges and opportunities that will likely impact the cities of tomorrow.

• Economic Implications: A growing population can expand the workforce, fueling economic growth. However, it can also strain resources, requiring increased investment in infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
• Social and Environmental Pressures: Demographic shifts, such as aging populations or youth bulges, can profoundly affect social structures, healthcare systems, and the environment.

 

Why It Matters

Population growth is more than just a numerical metric. It is a fundamental lens through which we can analyze:

• Historical Development: By understanding past population trends, we can better appreciate the factors that have shaped human civilizations.
• Future Planning: Governments, businesses, and organizations can use population data to make informed decisions about resource allocation, infrastructure development, and social policies.

 

Have World Population Growth Numbers Peaked?

World population growth rates peaked in the late 1960s and have declined sharply in the past four decades, but we’re still on a positive trend. We’re expected to reach 9 billion people by 2050, but a lot of that growth comes from developing countries – they also almost exclusively come from urban areas. 

via Axios (Click for an Interactive Graph)

Urbanization: Megacities

In the 1800’s, about 10% of the population lived in urban areas. Since 2014, over 50% of the world’s population has lived in urban areas – today it’s approximately 55%. That number is growing.

Ironically, as we grow more digitally connected, our world is shrinking, and our populations are concentrating. 

An interesting consequence of this rapid urbanization and population growth in developing countries has been the increased development of Megacities – defined as cities with populations greater than 10 million. Today, there are 33 megacities – more than triple the number in the 1990s. 

This creates a set of interesting opportunities and challenges. 

For example, how will these cities deal with infrastructure – sanitation, transportation, etc?

 

via visualcapitalist

Today, in most high-income countries, about 80% of the population lives in urban areas - contrasting the primarily rural populations of lower-income countries. 

As a result, we see many of these megacities forming in developing countries. As a side note, we’re also seeing countries like China making substantial investments and alliances in these developing areas. This is likely done to profit from the expected growth and also to shift the future balance of power in their favor. Sometimes, it makes sense to focus on the marathon and not just the sprint.

It’s interesting how the world can become more decentralized - and more globalized - amidst a contraction of where people live.

The Average NFL Player ...

When I woke up this morning, I saw that Dak Prescott, the star quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys, signed a new contract, making him the highest-paid player in NFL history. His new four-year, $240 million deal makes him the league’s first $60 million per year player. 

If you are curious, here is a list of the highest-paid NFL players in 2024.

Each of the 32 teams has an active roster of 53 players. That is 1,696 active roster players. Add the practice squad and account for injuries, and in a typical season, you end up with about 2,100 players per season.

Now that the NFL Football season is officially underway, I thought it would be interesting to look at each position’s composite player.

As you might expect, different sports have a different ratio of ethnicities, builds, and features. The same is true for different positions on a football team.  For example, you might expect more Pacific Islanders in Rugby or Asians in Badminton. You expect NBA players to be taller, swimmers to have longer arms, and football players to have more muscle. 

Here is a visualization that shows what happens when you average the top players’ faces in various positions.

  

osmutiar via Reddit

Composites are interesting.

While you may be thinking, “This player must be unstoppable,”... statistically, he’s average.

The “composite” NFL player would be the 848th-best player in the league. He’s not a starter, and he plays on an average team. 

We found the same thing with our trading bots. The ones that made it through most filters weren’t star performers. They were the average bots that did enough not to fail (but failed to make the list as top performers in any of the categories). The survivors were generalists, not specialists.

In reality, you need both.

In an ideal world with no roster limits, you’d want the perfect lineup for each granular situation. You’d want to evaluate players on how they perform under pressure, on different downs, against other players, and with various schemes. 

On a related but slightly different note, I recently read a post called “Why Generalists Own the Future.” It says that, in the age of AI, it’s better to know a little about a lot than a lot about a little. But part of that rationale is that it is easy to find or create digital specialists to do the things people used to do.

That’s what technology lets you do with algorithms. You can have a library of systems that communicate with each other ... and you don’t even have to pay their salary (but you will need data scientists, researchers, machines, data, alternative data, electricity, disaster recovery, and a testing platform).

You won’t find exceptional specialists if your focus is on generalized safety. Generalists are great, but you also have to be able to respond to specific conditions.

How ‘Bout Them Cowboys!