Thursday, February 23, 2012

Google Minus

A year ago, maybe a bit more, I thought google was the best thing since sliced bread in the tech world.

Then Google Plus happened.

Gundotra and Horowitz destroyed what I loved about Google. The nym policy was the start of a year-long PLUS decline. Their integration strategy (gutting Reader, "your world" search, unified platform across products, demanding a DRM standard in HTML5 and working w/Adobe and essentially limiting adobe flash plugins to chrome only on Linux OS, their local African business directory scam/ripoff. Add it all up and I hate Google now. Granted, not as much as I hated MS back in the day. Not hate, am disappointed in?

So I'm moving my email to lavabit; going to end up using bloglines for newsreader; shutting this shithole of a blog down; use duckduckgo or ixquick for a more private search experience.

I'll miss the integration, but you know. Fuck em.

Thursday, February 09, 2012


This is ripped from a little lunchtime babbling I just posted on Livejournal.
90% of it is probably bullshit, but I think it has some merit and it seems others have thought along similar veins (if not in the direct way I'm pondering this).

The reason I linked that thermoeconomics link earlier is because I read something on boingboing about the discussion of unintended consequences in making things more "energy efficient". Paved with Good Intentions.

Basically the idea is that if energy is more efficient, that means people end up spending less on things like heating/gas, which then gives them more money to spend on things like consumer products, which also have a carbon footprint, and there's discussion on what that means in overall use of energy.

But that's only the stimulus to my query... Do you recall my theory of "Money=Mass"? That came about with thinking of the "Trickle Down" doesn't make sense because it obviously doesn't trickle down, it goes up to the top, unless of course you invert what we conventionally think of as up and down (as above, so below)...

I inverted the idea of up and down. And instead of thinking of people, I thought of money. And if you take a cluster of money it has mass, which causes gravity (in a literal sense). So what if you had a big enough ball of money, it would cause more money to gravitate towards itself.

Money=Mass=DOWN. Trickle down works in this sense, because conceptually money is like mass.
Mass = Energy.
We burn mass and get a release of the stored energy in the process. There's an equivalence process. You can store energy. That is what money is - stored energy from the labor (well in pure labor-theory-of-value, at least, though I know that's not really true and a bit outdated, sorry Marx).

So I wondered what about "entropy and economics" and i came upon thermoeconomics.

Some of the work around that is more environmental and trying to quantify thermodynamics of a physical system in money, but I want to do the inverse (which if my skimming is correct is what some people are proposing and thinking about). That is - come up with general rules (I hesitate to call anything in economics a "Law", despite what economists would want one to believe) that govern the transfer of energy (labor) into mass (money) -- and how does this mass accumulate? What are the rules behind the flow? To quantify it in a way that correlates with the concepts of thermodynamics, entropy, and everything else that goes along with it.

One issue is what it means to be an "open" system, and I think in some sense, in the economics field, obviously you need the open system of the earth to the sun, but in terms of what role humans play in economics like this, the open system is future human existence.

Without the continuous labor supply, if population drops, so does the energy, so does the ability to create things, and produce more "order" (in contrast to entropy)... Scale, from what I read, also comes into play of how we determine what is entropic and what isn't... I may be reading it wrong, but if you zoom out of a system that looks fairly ordered and having low entropy, you may find that it is indeed only a part of a system that overall has higher entropy than it first appeared.

So I think understanding what the scales we're dealing with would also be an important part of this.