Wired reports that a new dating app sends users a swab kit in order to “match potential mates based on genetic and social compatibility”. But Wired also correctly explains that “the science of genetic compatibility applied to dating is dubious at best”. If you are lucky, I add.
Today, a former Washington Post publisher and Facebook board member rightly opposed requests “for the regulation of big technology companies”… but omitting a crucial point. In “Think very carefully before regulating speech”, Mr. Graham rightly observes that:
I just read something that feels like “everything today’s tech is doing wrong, in ONE SENTENCE”. Then I realized another way to look at it.
Wired reports that “UK police are now using fingerprint scanners on the streets to identify people in less than a minute”. I have a feeling that the next three titles on the same topic may be something like these:
- “Blockchain-powered smart cities are more attainable than people imagine”, says this article. Cool. But so is … global warming, and many other things, both good and bad. Any answer to a question like the title of that article, that is “Can an entire city run on the blockchain?” has very little value if it doesn’t come together with serious answers to “Would it be good to run an entire city on the blockchain?
It is possible to customize what Facebook shows you in its News Feed. Here is how to do it, and above all WHY, explained in the simplest possible manner.
Requests that Facebook “opens up its algorithms” continue to come. Because nobody seems to realize that, no matter how surely well-meaning those proposals are, they are structurally impossible to satisfy, on any centralized platform like Facebook.
An article by Roger McNamee titled “How to Fix Facebook - Before it fixes us” does a great job of describing the problems created by Facebook or any other platforms working in the same way, but contradicts itself when it proposes certain kinds of regulatory fixes. Those fixes are:
An article about Facebook published last summer is a great read, but the reason why it is great may not be immediately evident:
Is there a connection between male dominance in ICT, and high-tech in general, and evolution of marriage? I don’t know for sure, but these two pieces make me wonder.