a href=”http://amp.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/computer-ai-machine-learning-predict-the-success-of-startups”>A computer was asked to predict which start-ups would be successful. The results were astonishing; Shashi Reddy; In Their Blog at the World Economic Formm (an LLC?); 2017-07-21. Shashi Reddy Chief of Staff, Quid AI (ex-YouNoodle).
tl;dr → Quid sells a prediction engine.
Not shown: comparison with the dart board.
Not shown: comparison with the monkeys.
2017 Fifty Best Startups; Ellen Huet (staff); In Bloomberg; 2017-03-06.
Teaser: This is high-ceremony clickbait, an ad for QuidThese Are the 50 Most Promising Startups You’ve Never Heard Of
Deep Space Industries
Edyn (Soil IQ)
Mad Street Den
Notion (Loop Labs)
Quid AI is renamed
YouNoodle <snide>how dotcommy!</snide>
Seems like the funding source was a feature in the model
<quote>quality of investors</quote>
<quote>Quid found these market opportunity areas by analyzing the company descriptions of startups and finding what sectors were most popular among companies founded in 2015 and 2016, plus which sectors raised the most money from the top five venture capital firms. (The list of top venture capital firms comes from a top fund-of-funds that declined to be named for compliance reasons.)</quote>
Angelisa C. Plane, Elissa M. Redmiles, Michelle L. Mazurek, University of Maryland; Michael Carl Tschantz, International Computer Science Institute; Exploring User Perceptions of Discrimination in Online Targeted Advertising; In Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium; 2017-08-16; some pages; landing.
tl;dr → Consumers hate targeted advertising in concept and in practice. N-2086.
Did someone not know this? … conclude that this is but awareness raising.
tl;dr → documentation; an inventory of sociocultural forces causing hacker politics; scope to 5 years (2011-2016).
Hackers and their projects have become routine, authoritative, and public participants in our daily geopolitical goings-on. There are no obvious, much less given, explanations as to why a socially and economically privileged group of actors, once primarily defined by obscure tinkering and technical exploration, is now so willing to engage in popular media advocacy, traditional policy- and law-making, political tool building, and especially forms of direct action and civil disobedience so risky that scores of hackers are currently in jail or exile for their willingness to expose wrongdoing. Why and how have hackers managed to preserve pockets of autonomy? What historical, cultural, and sociological conditions have facilitated their passage into the political arena, especially in such large numbers? Why do a smaller but still notable fraction risk their privilege with acts of civil disobedience? These are questions that beg for nuanced answers—beyond the blind celebration or denigration offered by popular characterizations of hacker politics. In this article I will provide an introductory inventory—a basic outline of the sociocultural attributes and corollary his- torical conditions—responsible for the intensification of hacker politics during the last 5 years.
Online tracking is evolving from browser- and device-tracking to people-tracking. As users are increasingly accessing the Internet from multiple devices this new paradigm of tracking—in most cases for purposes of advertising—is aimed at crossing the boundary between a user’s individual devices and browsers. It establishes a person-centric view of a user across devices and seeks to combine the input from various data sources into an individual and comprehensive user profile. By its very nature such cross-device tracking can principally reveal a complete picture of a person and, thus, become more privacy-invasive than the siloed tracking via HTTP cookies or other traditional and more limited tracking mechanisms. In this study we are exploring cross-device tracking techniques as well as their privacy implications.
Particularly, we demonstrate a method to detect the occurrence of cross-device tracking, and, based on a cross-device tracking dataset that we collected from 126 Internet users, we explore the prevalence of cross-device trackers on mobile and desktop devices. We show that the similarity of IP addresses and Internet history for a user’s devices gives rise to a matching rate of F-1 = 0.91 for connecting a mobile to a desktop device in our dataset. This finding is especially noteworthy in light of the increase in learning power that cross-device companies may achieve by leveraging user data from more than one device. Given these privacy implications of cross-device tracking we also examine compliance with applicable self-regulation for 40 cross-device companies and find that some are not transparent about their practices.
Since 2010, digital direct action, including leaks, hacking and mass protest, has become a regular feature of political life on the Internet. The source, strengths and weakness of this activity are considered in this paper through an in-depth analysis of Anonymous, the protest ensemble that has been adept at magnifying issues, boosting existing — usually oppositional — movements and converting amorphous discontent into a tangible form. This paper, the third in the Internet Governance Paper Series, examines the intersecting elements that contribute to Anonymous’ contemporary geopolitical power: its ability to land media attention, its bold and recognizable aesthetics, its participatory openness, the misinformation that surrounds it and, in particular, its unpredictability.
About Organized Chaos: Reimagining the Internet Project
A Good Understanding of D-BUS – An IPC Mechanism in Linux; Bobbin Zachariah; In Lin Oxide; 2014-07-16.
Commentariat: <quote>This tutorial is so out-dated that dbus_connection_setup_with_g_main is deprecated. New code should use GDBus instead./quote>. Indeed, the code is badly formatted and Might. Work. See git://git.baker.org/.../bobbin-zachariah-dbus-sample-service.git
John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt; The Advent of Netwar (complete copy); National Defense Research Institute;
The information revolution is leading to the rise of network forms of organization, with unusual implications for how societies are organized and conflicts are conducted. “Netwar” is an emerging consequence. The term refers to societal conflict and crime, short of war, in which the antagonists are organized more as sprawling “leaderless” networks than as tight-knit hierarchies. Many terrorists, criminals, fundamentalists, and ethno-nationalists are developing netwar capabilities. A new generation of revolutionaries and militant radicals is also emerging, with new doctrines, strategies, and technologies that support their reliance on network forms of organization. Netwar may be the dominant mode of societal conflict in the 21st century. These conclusions are implied by the evolution of societies, according to a framework presented in this RAND study. The emergence of netwar raises the need to rethink strategy and doctrine to conduct counternetwar. Traditional notions of war and low-intensity conflict as a sequential process based on massing, maneuvering, and fighting will likely prove inadequate to cope with nonlinear, swarm-like, information-age conflicts in which societal and military elements are closely intermingled.
JavaScipt code that attempts to bypass content blocking