Society in an echo chamber

The internet is like the force in Star Wars
"It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together"

The internet empowers us, it gives a voice to those that previously had none, it has been used to great effect in toppling unjust governments and revealing corruption in those we thought to be uncorrupt.

Yet now I can see an accidental sinicism rearing its ugly head.  I don't mean the obvious ability to allow unimpeded communication between inhumain groups, or facillitating the exchange of degrading and humiliating information, no this latest wrong doing isn't planned, it has no direction and isn't promoted by a single voice moreover it's promoted by every voice.

Information services such as google, twitter and facebook seek to present the user (us) with only the information we find useful or interesting, for if they didn't we wouldn't consider them very good information services, and here's where the dilema starts.

Let's take twitter as a prime example because the links are more obvious to see.  The information that Twitter promotes to me are tweets, retweets and messages from a group of people I've chosen to follow.  Just as with real life physical friendships we don't befriend people we don't like, people whose views and opinions are contrary to our own.  This means that the tweets that I am most likely to see are those from people whose opinions already match my own, my twitter feed has thus become a source of validation of my own views and opinions be they right or wrong.

The same is true of every user of these information services too, therefore these services now simply re-enforce views of those that use them, there's little or no counter argument to a users view from the followers they have.

With the human race using this wonderful tool, and let's face it the internet truly is a wonderful tool, we may be sleep walking into a world where we as humans are blinkered to what is really going on around us.  We already defer more and more decision making to artificial intelligence, so if we have the devil on one shoulder telling us to do something and nothing countering that then we do exactly what we're told.  For example would Theresa May have called a general election if she listened to anyone other than the 'yes' men and women that surround her, doubtful because that would make her incompetent.  

If a confused young adult is grappling with the decision to commit something that they deep down know to be wrong and there's no voice of reason that they trust telling them to think again, then of course they'll act on those unfettered impulses.

I learnt today that there's another aspect to this, learning!  That's right learning is disrupted by the world becoming more efficient at giving us what we want, by becoming good at something it's actually making us bad at something, seriously how counter-intuitive is that!?!?  There's method to my madness, it comes from television, the way in which we consume media has changed, drastically irrevocably and in most cases for the better, but there's one unfortunate yet obvious conclusion that can be derived from it, we don't see what we don't want to see which isn't always advantageous.

When I was growing up I would be at the mercy of broadcast telivision schedules, I had to watch only the subject matter that was chosen by someone else at a time that someone else had devised.  This meant that on occasion when I was winding down I did end up watching subject matter I wouldn't have chosen had there been something else on.  Let me put it this way, if a child is given a choice between healthy food and sweets then nine times out of ten they'll go for sweets, do this often enough and the child suffers bad teeth and diabetes.  Now take that choice away, as in the case that there are only 4 broadcast chanels and no on demand services, and that same child will eat the healthy food because despite it not being what they'd chose given the choice they are still hungry after all.  It's largely for this reason as a child I ended up watching many beautiful programs with the wonderful Sir David Attenborough, through his pograms I witnessed the love songs between humpback whales, the amazing journey taken by salmon each year and the invisible movement of plants, all of which I cherish now, yet at the time if I was given the choice between that or cartoons I think I'd have wasted my intellect watching an inept coyote single handedly fund Acme whilst in pursuit of a fast paced bird, why he never simply ordered take-out I'll never understand :)

So that's it, there no evil or malice behind the AI that's serving us precisely the data we request in an ever more efficient way, but the eventual destination of us as a race is slowly revealing itself and it isn't a pretty picture, as VIKI says in I, Robot "my logic is undeniable"

EV cars idea

I can't remember who it was that said it but "a captain thinks of weapons a commander thinks of logistics"

I guess it sort of means even if you have the meanest weaponry if it's not where you want it when it's needed you might as well not have it, which may well be why the Romans were so successful because of all of their roads.

So the secret to success is logistics, and that's where I came up with this idea

Making EV cars with bigger and bigger range may not be the answer.

Make EV cars that take exchangeable batteries, each battery could give a limited range as long as there’s another charged battery ready for them to pickup.

The batteries themselves could be recharged at any number of charge spots by any means of creating electricity, this could be sunlight, wind or fossil fuel.  Once charged these batteries could be shipped to outlets such as current petrol stations ready for someone to exchange.

The change of a battery should be simple so that it doesn’t take a long time.

People on the scheme could pay-as-you-go so would be charged at a higher rate for the energy used and some people could be on a pay-monthly subscription where they have an allowed usage and anything over is charged at a higher rate, exactly the same as mobile phone usage.

Batteries could be constantly monitored with regards, charge, capacity and even location.  Through this monitoring it should be possible to ensure there’s always a battery charged and ready within range of a car running low.

People could join a subscription whereby a new battery is delivered to them when the current battery runs low just like the milkman used to deliver milk, often using an electric vehicle.

By doing this you could even have different vehicles being able to carry more batteries and even allow a smaller half charge emergency battery to be carried that would give enough power to get to the next battery depot.  This could be a rechargeable battery and the main batteries are only chargeable by the charge stations.

The monitoring could be used to check for tampering and actual usage statistics could be used for billing just as meters are used on households at the moment.

So that was 2016

I am sure lots of things happened at the beginning of the year but the things that stick in my mind the most are the things that happened at the end of the year.

Number one amongst those is Britain or at least a slender margin over half of Britain (52% of people that voted) decided that rather than take advantage of a common market and the prospect of reduced trade restrictions it would go it alone

Arguments against second home renting

The very title of this is wrong because the moment someone vacates a home but keeps it in order to profit it ceases to be a home (at least for them) and becomes little more than an asset.

#1-I need to rent it

I call bullshit! Ask why you need to rent it rather than sell it, if you need the home you couldn't rent it to someone else so if you don't need the home there's no reason not to sell it.

#2-I am not profiting from it

Again bull, unless your renting at a value that pays back the tenants an equivalent to the inflation felt on the house you're profiting by the fact you own something that is gaining value against a loan that you are not paying but your tenants are.

Or to put it into even simpler terms, you're accruing equity while the tenants are taking the risk.

#3- but if I sold it someone else would buy it as a rental

This I can't deny, yes there are plenty of greed driven people out there that wish to make money by virtue of the fact they already have capitol. But I ask you if you see an abandoned item at the side of the road do you take it home because"if you didn't someone else would?" That's my point one is somehow seen morally wrong and the other somehow acceptable.

In other words I better do something bad before someone else does, and profit by it.

#3- people need to rent

The irritating thing about this is that due to current circumstances ie. too few owners compared to houses this is true and the people who buy to let tend not to understand far reaching economic principles. 

Essentially if buy to rent were to be abolished the result would be a property glut and prices would plummet, all be it to a level they should've been at, and of course those that are renting at a rate more or less equivalent to paying back a mortgage would actually own. In fact the one and only reason for rental is short term, which is not what angers me.

I find people who rent out a property are greedy by virtue of the fact they seek to get money literally while they sleep, so providing no true benefit to the populous and no driving force for betterment.

These people sicken me but are most likely too thick to realise they're part of the larger problem