Greek Complexity

What non-religious movements can learn from religion

Here's a thought-provoking TED talk by Alain de Botton, who has also written Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion. He makes the case for taking the best aspects of organised religions and religious institutions and applying them not just to atheism, but also to companies, small entrepreneurs, art and so on.

His book is out in March 2012. Click through to view:

Where do ideas come from?

I am reading a book called I am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstader that explores the concept of "I" or the self. What does it mean to say "I", where does "I" come from and so on. Fascinating and highly readable.

In the book, Hofstader quotes another scientist Roger Sperry as having written in an essay titled Mind, Brain and Humanist Values the following passage:

In the brain model proposed here, the causal potency of an idea, or an ideal, becomes just as real as that of a molecule, a cell, or a nerve impulse. Ideas cause ideas and help evolve new ideas. They interact with each other and with other mental forces in the same brain [and] in [other] brains. And they also interact with the external surroundings to produce [...] a burstwise advance in evolution.

Now, this reminded me of a thought I had a couple of weeks ago: does information obey the first law of thermodynamics? The first law of thermodynamics states that "energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed". Does this apply to ideas too? If so, does this mean that every idea that has ever been or shall ever be already exists in some form? Does that then mean that "new" ideas are simply the discovery of existing ideas and/or the uncovering of ideas via logical extensions of already recognised ideas? For that matter, is information the same as energy?

On the other hand, while the notion of extending existing ideas to generate new idea may be true for purely "algorithmic" reasoning, how could we then explain seemingly blue-sky creativity? Also, if we take it as a given that ideas aren't merely invented abstractions with no physical basis, aren't "massless" and arise from biochemistry, then what is the literal fuel for a new idea? Is there an equation that is the equivalent of or an extension of E=MC² which incorporates a variable representing information?

I'm sure none of these questions are new, so enlightenment, or at least a discussion, would be appreciated! My trawls through Wikipedia uncovered useful-looking articles like Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory, but my knowledge of even high-school level physics is shaky at best and deeply suspect at worst. :-) Landauer's Principle might be what I'm looking for if I could just decipher it.

Strange Youtube video stat

So I was watching this video on Youtube and noticed something strange.

The video only has 302 views but 3314 ratings? I'm puzzled. How can someone rate the video without first getting to the page and watching it? Wonder if anyone knows.

Don't bother sitting through the video. It's not particularly funny. I'm not being over-sensitive (hah!) -- it just isn't that funny.

The argument over Internet freedom

...aka piracy, depending on who you talk to, is fast becoming a hot-potato issue.

Even in sedate Singapore. Entrepreneur Bernard Leong makes his case to the Singapore government as to why they should not enact a law similar to SOPA. You'll find his piece here. He says:

The burden of reviewing every blog post, tweet and video submission is impossible to manage for any company. This is similar to the situation in China, where video sites such as Tudou have to hire people to monitor content uploads 24-7 to ensure that no sensitive political content is uploaded.

SGE‘s opposition against SOPA/PIPA legislation is not focused on freedom of speech arguments which have been brought forward by many digital advocates. You can read about these elsewhere. Our concern is that such legislation has profound implications to our economy.

He later says:

There has been strong resistance against both bills not just from many technology entrepreneurs from the start-up space but also from multi-national companies such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook.

...meaning that the opponents of such legislation are, as one would expect, those who would suffer most from SOPA-like legislation. Now, The Economist said in their usual forthright style a few weeks ago that:

The bill’s supporters want this [how content should be distributed and paid for] to change as slowly as possible, so they have time to adapt. Opponents want to see more rapid changes in business models to speed up overdue innovation: cheaper pricing in poor countries, more use of on-demand digital services, less exclusivity in distribution, and ultimately, less reliance on selling albums and DVDs. Yet self-interest is at work on both sides: many of the bill’s critics are trying to create just these kinds of business.

A related issue is now boiling over in India. Global Internet companies are in effect being held accountable for things that their users said, even though a law had previously been passed specifically to clarify that Internet companies and other intermediaries could not be held liable for their users' misdeeds (as long as certain conditions were met). See Is India Ignoring its own Internet Protections?.

So who's right? I'd rather focus on the freedom-of-speech argument that Bernard eschews. High-minded? Idealistic? Yes and yes. But that doesn't make the argument any less valid. In fact, focusing on dollars and cents cheapens the issue.

Note also, as The Economist implies, that arguing purely on economic grounds is to pick winners and losers. Who is to judge whether Google's and Facebook's claims are more valid than counter-claims by Newscorp and CBS? On what basis can one pick one side over another?

Taking the freedom-of-speech tack will probably not have much effect in Singapore (possibly the reason Bernard avoids this argument to begin with) but I think this is the right argument as a matter of principle. Possibly the only right argument. It certainly doesn't have the conflict of interest of the economic arguments advanced.

Singapore vs Hong Kong as a business jurisdiction

Link of the day: Singapore as a Holding Domicile for Your China Operations

This piece contrasts the use of Singapore as a location to set up holding companies for Asian operations versus using Hong Kong instead. Mostly about tax but also other matters. Not as boring as it sounds. The article doesn't mention it explicitly but Singapore also has bilateral trade and tax arrangements with India, separate from the India-ASEAN tax treaty. China and HK don't.

Inside the VC's mind (episode deux)

I'd posted episode un last year but that was more about how VCs look at investments and why they, or rather, we think a certain way. This post is inspired by this NYT op-ed piece -- the title of that piece isn't meant to imply anything about VCs! -- and is actually literally about how this VC's brain is wired.

To quickly summarise the op-ed: it makes the point that, contrary to today's received wisdom, teams aren't the best way to achieve creative and efficient solutions to hard problems. Solitary operators are often better since they have time to reflect, don't get influenced by or feel compelled to agree with other people's opinions, aren't in permanent meeting-hell, can benefit from privacy, and so on. This has implications for organisation structure, how people learn, even office ergonomics and how each person's daily calendar is organised. All quite fascinating but plenty has already been said in the NYT and it's not what this post is about.

The NYT article made me think of how I think my own brain is (or needs to be) wired to do my job well. I'm sure some of you think this is self-indulgent drivel, and you're probably right :-) but I loved hearing about this from a VC friend/mentor before I got into the field myself so just hoping to pass on the favour.

The one thing I'd say about the VC's mind (my mind) is that I am (or need to be) almost manically bipolar.

Dilbert wisdom

On CEO stock options:

And in real life? After having run the company to the ground, the CEO walked out the door and left the clean-up job to whoever stayed behind.

Apple is disgusting

There's no denying that my views on Apple's stock price were wrong last February and remain wrong today. The stock is today up about 15% since my prediction of a fall. But Wall Street has also started looking at the company's broader impact on the world, something I mentioned briefly in this post. Take a look at what Henry Blodget says at Business Insider:

Daisey interviews dozens of (former) workers who are secretly supporting a union. One group talked about using "hexane," an iPhone screen cleaner. Hexane evaporates faster than other screen cleaners, which allows the production line to go faster. Hexane is also a neuro-toxin. The hands of the workers who tell him about it shake uncontrollably.

Some workers can no longer work because their hands have been destroyed by doing the same thing hundreds of thousands of times over many years (mega-carpal-tunnel). This could have been avoided if the workers had merely shifted jobs. Once the workers' hands no longer work, obviously, they're canned.

...

If Apple decided to build iPhones and iPads for Americans using American labor rules, two things would likely happen:

• The prices of iPhones and iPads would go up
• Apple's profit margins would go down

Neither of those things would be good for American consumers or Apple shareholders. But they might not be all that awful, either. Unlike some electronics manufacturers, Apple's profit margins are so high that they could go down a lot and still be high. And some Americans would presumably feel better about loving their iPhones and iPads if they knew that the products had been built using American labor rules.

In other words, Apple could probably afford to use American labor rules when building iPhones and iPads without destroying its business.

So it seems reasonable to ask why Apple is choosing NOT to do that.

More: Your iPhone Was Built, In Part, By 13 Year-Olds Working 16 Hours A Day For 70 Cents An Hour

Top 3 myths about immigration

Short and informative video about immigration:

This is about America not about Singapore but I can't imagine the conclusions would be that different for Singapore or anywhere else.

Losing the plot

Here's an excerpt of an email from this morning, suitably censored for public consumption:

Drivers in Singapore are such *** pieces of ***. Robots. Inconsiderate ***. I got on the CTE as usual and it was really jammed at least until Balestier and also behind me (before my on-ramp). Happens sometimes but only for a few hundred metres before clearing up. This time it was like this all the way to the CBD exit at Havelock Road. Ok, at least I could move at 40-50 km/h on my bike past near-stationary cars, but I couldn't work out why it was so jammed. Come out onto Havelock Road and it's even worse. Looked like Bangkok. This is 7 km from the start of my journey! I thought there must be some major problem like a lane closure or something. Keep going, don't see anything. Finally got to Raffles Place, just at the junction with Shenton Way, and I find there's been a minor collision between two cars. No injuries, no great damage even. But the *** *** just *** sit there and create a giant *** traffic jam for the rest of the world during peak hour. The rules are quite clear that if there are no injuries, you must move your vehicle so you don't obstruct other traffic. What's worse is, no one sees this as a problem. The police should be issuing gigantic traffic fines whenever this happens (and it happens quite a bit). People should be yelling at the numbskulls. None of this happens, as far as I know.

Robots was the funniest expletive because it's so true!