Shared posts

03 Jan 11:19

On The Future of Media

Jim Nelson signing out after 15 years as chief editor at GQ:

We hear a lot about the Future of Media, about the inconvenient truth of disruption and the promise of this or that way forward. Sometimes I think no one knows anything. And then I realize the answer is as obvious as it ever was. See, throughout my years here, there was always something that was going to come along and revolutionize everything—the iPad, Vine, Facebook Live, IGTV—but to my mind, nothing ever replaced, or will replace, what happens when smart and talented storytellers put their hearts and minds together to create work they’re excited about. That’s the only key to the past and future of media, and the only thing worth aspiring to.


05 Sep 08:13

Thanks, Google!


It’s been just over five years since Google shut down the Google Reader. I was surprised to see a lot of people are still bitter with them about it, even though *ahem* independent alternatives continue to exist and thrive.

I get it though. I was one of the millions of people who got my news from Google Reader. But it was infuriating to watch them kill a useful tool and then invest billions in magic glasses, killer drones, and self-driving cars.

So while it’s okay to be bitter, I think most of us probably realize we’re all better off with them gone. RSS took a serious hit that day, and use remains down. But in many ways, RSS is in a healthier and more sustainable position. 

It’s now clear that the demise of the Google Reader was first really loud warning that you can’t rely on a publicly traded, profit-driven Silicon Valley tech company to deliver content. There is no way that story ends well. They will feed you sponsored crapundermine your democracy, or pull the rug out from under your feet entirely. 

I’m not going to pretend life is necessarily easier with Google gone from the game. The problem is that the tech giants are successful because they make things so easy. I know that RSS may never have as many users as it once did when Google was invested in it. 

But online publishing isn’t supposed to be easy. And being an informed citizen isn’t supposed to be easy, either. The idea that we just casually check our phone every hour or so and Google, Twitter, or Facebook would give us a quick dose of everything we need to read is a fantasy. 

When Google got out of the RSS game, those of us who remained realized that yes, we can survive without them. Five years later, RSS is still the best, most unfiltered way to get content you want. There’s a greater diversity of choices and no one company dominates everything. So let’s stop hoping Facebook or Twitter or someone else will do our job for us. Let’s stop waiting for someone to tell us what we want to read. Let’s stop publishing what they want us to publish. We can do better without them.      

11 Jan 06:06

“Restoring Internet Freedom”

So FCC chairman Ajit Pai has announced a plan to roll back net neutrality rules called “Restoring Internet Freedom.” I think we all know that this isn’t about freedom in the sense of allowing people to access the internet freely. Or viewing or creating whatever content they please free from tracking or throttling. It’s not about personal freedom at all.  


Ajit Pai (formerly of Verizon) being sworn in by outgoing FCC Chairman Genachowski (before taking a job at the Carlyle Group)

What it’s about is the freedom of network providers to do whatever the heck they want. That may FEEL like personal freedom to Pai since he worked for Verizon prior to taking on this role with the FCC. But for the 7 billion people on Earth who benefit from net neutrality (real internet freedom), this is a huge step in the wrong direction.

Will this be the death of internet innovation? When’s the last time a billionaire did something innovative? Uncovering tax loopholes doesn’t count! Can we reasonably look to Verizon to fix the many issues that we’re seeing on the web today? As Google/Youtube fess up to how messed up their content has become and vow to fix it, do you really believe that they can or will? What about Facebook and their complete incompetence during the last election? Will billionaires fix those problems?

I’m betting on the coder sitting in her apartment dreaming up a better way to serve age appropriate videos to kids. I’m betting on groups of computer science undergrads brainstorming an open protocol for social networking. But will Verizon and the rapidly consolidating group of internet network behemoths allow those ideas to thrive on THEIR internet? If not, we’ll be talking “Restoring Internet Freedom” in earnest.

25 Apr 00:04

hormones, brain and behaviour, a not-so-simple story

by tomstafford

There’s a simple story about sex differences in cognition, which traces these back to sex differences in early brain development, which are in turn due to hormone differences. Diagrammatically, it looks something like this:

simpleCordelia Fine’s “Delusions of Gender” (2010) accuses both scientists and popularisers of science with being too ready to believe overly simple, and biologically fixed, accounts of sex differences in cognition.

There is an undeniable sex difference in foetal testosterone in humans at around 6-8 weeks after conception. In Chapter 9 of her book, Fine introduces Simon Baron-Cohen, who seems to claim that this surge in male hormones is the reason why men are more likely to be Autistic, and why no woman had ever won the Fields Medal. So, diagrammatically:

simple_mathsThis account may appear, at first, compelling, perhaps because of its simplicity. But Fine presents us with an antidote for this initial intuition, in the form of the neurodevelopmental story of a the spinal nucleus of the bulbocavernosus (SNB), a subcortical brain area which controls muscles at the base of the penis.

Even here, the route between hormone, brain difference and behaviour is not so simple, as shown by neat experiments with rats by Celia Moore, described by Fine (p.105 in my edition). Moore showed that male rat pups are licked more by their mothers, and that this licking is due to excess testosterone in their urine. Mothers which couldn’t smell, licked male and female pups equally, and female pups injected with testosterone were licked as much as male pups. This licking had an extra developmental effect on the SNB, which could be mimicked by manual brushing of a pup’s perineum. Separate work showed that testosterone doesn’t act directly on the neurons of the SNB, but instead prevents cell death in the SNB by preserving the muscles which it connects to (in males). So, diagrammatically:

snbOne review, summarising what is known about the development of the SNB, writes ‘[There is] a life-long plasticity in even this simple system [and] evidence that adult androgens interact with social experience in order to affect the SNB system’. Not so simple!

What I love about this story is the complexity of developmental causes. Even in the rat, not the human! Even in the subcortex, not the cortex! Even in a brain area which direct controls a penis reflex. Fine’s implicit question for Baron-Cohen seems to be: If evolution creates this level of complexity for something as important for reproductive function, what is likely for the brain areas responsible for something as selectively-irrelevant as winning prizes at Mathematics?

Notice also the variety of interactions, not just the number : hormones -> body, body -> sensation in mother’s brain, brain -> behaviour, mother’s behaviour -> pup’s sensation, sensation -> cell growth. This is a developmental story which happens across hormones, brain, body, behaviour and individuals.

Against this example, sex differences in cognition due to early hormone differences look far from inevitable, and the simple hormone-brain-behaviour looks like a crude summary at best. Whether you take it to mean that sex differences in hormones have multiple routes to generate sex differences in cognition (a ‘small differences add up’ model) or that sex differences in hormones will cancel each other out, may depend on your other assumptions about development. At a minimum, the story of the SNB shows that those assumptions are worth checking.

Previously: gender brain blogging

Paper: Moore, C. L., Dou, H., & Juraska, J. M. (1992). Maternal stimulation affects the number of motor neurons in a sexually dimorphic nucleus of the lumbar spinal cord. Brain research, 572(1), 52-56.

Source for the 2009 claim by Baron-Cohen claim that foetal hormones explain why no woman has won the Fields medal: Autism test ‘could hit maths skills’.

In 2014 Maryam Mirzakhabi won the Fields medal.

Diagrams made with