Concise history of smartwatches

Categories: Articles, Gadgets
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: December 23, 2017

A nice overview of history of smartwatches from Hodinkee.

 

“…. Smartwatches and their predecessors, wrist computers, have been the reluctant revolution. Over the years, they have come in waves, arriving with a big splash, then sinking out of sight. Even the 2003 entrance into the market by the then almighty Microsoft with its Smart Personal Object Technology (SPOT) for watches couldn’t make smartwatches mainstream.

Until 2015, what smartwatch had been a hit the way Seiko was in the 1970s, Swatch in the 1980s, or the Rolex Daytona in the 1990s? After a while, one wondered what the deal was with smartwatches: Were they a major development in watch history? A niche toy for tech-geeks? Or simply a long-running, highly entertaining freak-watch sideshow?

Apple has changed all that. The Apple effect on the watch market has been profound. The revolution now has its monster hit watch. Global sales of smartwatches totaled 4.2 million pieces in 2014, according to International Data Corp., the research firm. It rose to 19.4 million in 2015, the year Apple Series 0 (as some call it) went on sale. Apple accounted for 11.6 million of those, according to IDC estimates.

…”

 

more of this here: [The link]

[2016] Seth Godin: No one is unreasonable

Categories: Articles, Blogs
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: July 9, 2016

Interesting post from Seth Godin: “No one is unreasonable”

“No one says, “I’m going to be unfair to this person today, brutal in fact, even though they don’t deserve it or it’s not helpful.”

Few people say, “I know that this person signed the contract and did what they promised, but I’m going to rip them off, just because I can.”

And it’s quite rare to have someone say, “I’m a selfish narcissist, and everyone should revolve around me merely because I said so.”

In fact, all of us have a narrative. It’s the story we tell ourselves about how we got here, what we’re building, what our urgencies are.

And within that narrative, we act in a way that seems reasonable.

To be clear, the narrative isn’t true. It’s merely our version, our self-talk about what’s going on. It’s the excuses, perceptions and history we’ve woven together to get through the world. It’s our grievances and our perception of privilege, our grudges and our loves.

No one is unreasonable. Or to be more accurate, no one thinks that they are being unreasonable.

That’s why we almost never respond well when someone points out how unreasonable we’re being. We don’t see it, because our narrative of the world around us won’t allow us to. Our worldview makes it really difficult to be empathetic, because seeing the world through the eyes of someone else takes so much effort.

It’s certainly possible to change someone’s narrative, but it takes time and patience and leverage. Teaching a new narrative is hard work, essential work, but something that is difficult to do at scale.

In the short run, our ability to treat different people differently means that we can seek out people who have a narrative that causes them to engage with us in reasonable ways. When we open the door for these folks, we’re far more likely to create the impact that we seek. No one thinks they’re unreasonable, but you certainly don’t have to work with the people who are.

And, if you’re someone who finds that your narrative isn’t helping you make the impact you seek, best to look hard at your narrative, the way you justify your unreasonableness, not the world outside. “

[The Link]

[NYT: 2016] What was the greatest era of innovation?

Categories: Articles, SciTech
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 14, 2016

An interesting article in NYT..

“We thought a better way to understand the significance of technological change would be to walk through how Americans lived, ate, traveled, and clothed and entertained themselves in 1870, 1920, 1970 and the present [2016]. This tour is both inspired by and reliant on Robert J. Gordon’s authoritative examination of innovation through the ages, “The Rise and Fall of American Growth,” published this year. These are portraits of each point in time, culled from Mr. Gordon’s research; you can decide for yourself which era is truly most transformative.”

 

NYT: [The link]

What is literature for? [A. D. Botton]

Categories: Articles
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 26, 2014

[seth godin] 3 ways to deal with future: accuracy, resilience and denial

Categories: Articles
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: January 3, 2014

Accuracy is the most rewarding way to deal with what will happen tomorrow–if you predict correctly. Accuracy rewards those that put all their bets on one possible outcome. The thing is, accuracy requires either a significant investment of time and money, or inside information (or luck, but that’s a different game entirely). Without a reason to believe that you’ve got better information than everyone else, it’s hard to see how you can be confident that this is a smart bet.

Resilience is the best strategy for those realistic enough to admit that they can’t predict the future with more accuracy than others. Resilience isn’t a bet on one outcome, instead, it’s an investment across a range of possible outcomes, a way to ensure that regardless of what actually occurs (within the range), you’ll do fine.

And denial, of course, is the strategy of assuming that the future will be just like today.

 

More of this here: [The Link]

Origins of Microsoft Research

Categories: Articles, SciTech
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 2, 2013

Microsoft research is well established and does some quite good work in many areas of computing technologies. Couple of early memos have surfaced which show how such a research group came to be. The memos and the slide-deck are an interesting read for anyone interested in research. The memo layout the plan for its activities, how it is structured, what processes need to be in place for successful adoption of the research outputs and indeed what useful research outputs should be (not just publications)..

 

Here are the links:

What happens online in 60 seconds [qmee]

Categories: Articles
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 1, 2013

A great infographic on what happens online in 60 seconds from qmee.

More here: [The Link]

update: Check what happens on the internet every second! : [The Link]

Awesome Calvin & Hobbes GIFs

Categories: Articles
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 27, 2013

It’s great to see calvin & hobbes jumping in the frames.

More here: http://calvinandhobbesgifs.tumblr.com/

 

 

calvinandhobbesgifs.tumblr.com

Is innovation slowing down?

Categories: Articles, SciTech
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: January 31, 2013

A question of introspection  often asked, at various times, whether things are going well or not. Now, what seems to be a world in recovery from the recent economic crisis, it is no wonder that this question is being asked and discussed. Interesting thoughts and discussion from both pessimists and optimists… I’d like to think I am one of the optimists.

Few links discussing this question:

Intense Competition among Scientists Has Gotten out of Hand [SciAm]

Categories: Articles, SciTech
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: January 15, 2013

An interesting article from Scientific American about state of competition among scientists for grants, positions and in general to resources needed for scientific endeavors. Especially when most of the credit is assigned to groups who publish first (priority criteria)….

Interesting excerpt from the article:

“The importance of teamwork in science has never been greater. Studies of publications over the past 50 years show that teams increasingly dominate science and are contributing the highest-impact research. Collaborators, consortia and networks are essential for tackling interdisciplinary problems and massive undertakings, such as the Human Genome Project. The priority rule may be undermining this process.

The appropriateness of the priority rule for science has never been seriously questioned. Is it best suited to the modern scientific age, in which scientists operate in large teams that put a premium on cooperation? An alternative system that celebrates team effort toward solving problems may work better. Industry, which favors collective goals over individual achievement, and the NIH Intramural Research Program, which encourages risk taking and collaborative partnerships with industry and academia, provide contrasting but instructional examples. Perhaps scientists would gladly trade the benefits of the priority rule (individual reward) for a system that offers greater stability of support and collegiality, freer sharing of information, more fairness, and improved scientific rigor and cooperation. This would be a discovery of enormous benefit to the scientific enterprise and the society it serves.”

 

More of this here: [The Link]

 

 

 

«page 1 of 8
Welcome , today is Sunday, August 25, 2019