Utucked Shirt With Tie

sharing (see under "Weapons of mass destruction")


I've gained the respect of the sharing of thoughts intended as an exchange of information alone and to observe how often the face of this damage has prompted me to develop a personal strategy to reduce them. The discussion then extends to everything that is the subject of crowding.

Disclaimer: This post makes abundant use of worst case scenarios





When we find something beautiful and exciting, the majority of us are driven to share it, to tell the friends who, to boast, some for a pleasant thing to do, who to pick, I know. It is a natural human instinct, we can contrast it to selfishness, we can say that it is innate spirit of collaboration, you can generalize about what you think.
Fattostà that I paused to think about the results of this behavior e. .. I did not like at all. A quick overview:

• AnimeDB; know it all: it was a godsend for those who got sick of replica DragonBall on Italia 1, and especially for the community of brokers and subtitled that had arisen around. We registered all, we told everyone, the word has spread so much that finally, after having made access almost impossible for occupied bandwidth, has also entered the Guardia di Finanza, and then end the game. Wonderful.
• The canteen "that good" ; the university canteens are all more or less sucks, this is known. There is only one very good canteen - so good as to not sound like a university canteen in fact - but, being a bit 'in the suburbs, this is uncomfortable and push people not to go - in theory . Here, since all those who have tried it have begun to advise around - and the rumor spread like wildfire - the row has increased appallingly uncomfortable with the expected consequences and the risk of not being able to catch the bus before the end of the validity of the ticket (well 75 min). Strike two.
  
• Facebook, as mentioned in previous posts, start Facebook is interesting that the groups were new, the applications were not bad, there was good content every day, and news that otherwise would have been hard to find. Then they started to register all humanity that nasty smeared Netlog Badoo and understood, and it happened the end of the world: it has become a competition over who creates the most deficient group, which battles thought dominant is the best, but look at me as I laugh, look at how many people do this same thing means that they are normal, this video of two years ago is beautiful, blah blah blah. Can not find a single news which has not been commented on by stoned, and any conspiracy of any kind. Just stuff the following weapons:
  
  
  
  

  " know that beautiful, Italy is detached from the internet and creates velinanet, a network where you can only see services on players and uominieddonne "
  
  " Veltroni would be the best president that Italy might have had "(sic)
  

  value added ZERO. The contents disappear visibly decent and the people you normally try to stay away are getting closer. A nightmare. Strike three.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

lessons to be learned? As follows:

share information on the existence and quality of a particular service is counter-productive (in other words it is wrong ).

And it is for a very simple mechanism, known to all: you tell it to friends and - if the service is actually as good as you support - they say it to their friends, and so on. Early in the dissemination of information, the amount of people who have broadband access grows exponentially [1]: you tell it to 5 people, who say it to 5 people, each of which says to 5 people, and doing so within 8 steps we are already almost 500,000 new users as possible. So, to share information quickly leads to an overload of users on the service in question, because the load is growing exponentially, and no service can cope with such growth without suffering discomfort. Inconvenience are reduced quality, the creation of code, the difficulty of access, and at worst the destruction of the service.
is for this reason that I say to anyone what it's called and where is the wonderful place where I stayed this summer in Berlin, because otherwise in a couple of years I find myself full of the boisterous Italian, with a consequent decrease in quality, availability of rooms and so on; unlivable. For the same reason I do not say no to the new replacement AnimeDB, but known, however, that not all follow the same trick: even now it is almost impossible to navigate due to bandwidth overloads, and lasted much less than AnimeDB. The lesson is not served with a cock.
However, there is an entire category of cases where sharing is a very good strategy: when you refer to a class of services , no one in particular. For example, it began to spread the fact that Japanese food is very good, the increase in demand was followed by an increase in supply: to date there are more Japanese restaurants two years ago, and this is definitely an advantage to both the availability and the quality (because after a while, 'when the offer reaches and exceeds the demand, comes the need for competition). The difference is that the market is able to handle the sovradomanda (and indeed, it is manna from heaven) as no company can own. The general rule is:

Share information only in respect of classes of service, never for a single service, the penalty disappearance of that service.
That's right:
" Mexican cuisine is good and cheap, you should try it "
this is not good:
" That Mexican restaurant is a wonderful and great prices "
Sticazzi.

willing to learn a bit ': as a simple application, this sharing mechanism-based dissemination is deeply destructive of the structure of the graph of friends (the nodes are people, the friendship link.) If the whole is highly disconnected graph with connected components of limited size, there would be problems in sharing information on individual services, because soon saturate the network of friendships and would not continue to grow exponentially. There would be a brake that is natural - even structural - which would prevent the spread overload: to spread to other connected components (groups of friends) the existence of the service should be rediscovered from time to time.
However, we know that it is not: the network of friendships form an almost fully connected graph and a story can reach virtually anyone on word of mouth: there are no structural brakes. In particular then, the presence of hubs (people with many more friends in the media) makes the network of friendships is one of the chats " small world networks "as well as be able to reach anyone, you can get there in a few moves. It is easy to imagine how such a situation allows a more rapid and widespread dissemination of information, causing uneasiness that I mentioned above.
The profound reason for which it is inappropriate to share is in fact inherent in the geometry of friendship: it is intrinsic.

Finally: if you really did not want to do without the ability to share, to limit the damage we autoimporci very severe restriction of sharing the information with at most 1 person (with "as a person 'mean in probability. And with" very severe "I mean that you have to put to shame those who violates the rule). This causes the growth of users in time to be more linear, which would ensure a longer life of service or, even better, would enable him to adapt supply to demand.
Why do I need to be so rigid in applying the rule? we tell everyone that on average at 1.5 persons, that is only part of the people than the rule. After 20 steps will know more than 6,000 people. In general, of course, in any case exceed the average growth will certainly be an exponential, and sooner or later there will be overhead. But if everyone says it to a person, after 20 steps will know 20 people, and the number is under control. Consequently, the limit of 1 person is absolutely essential because the phenomenon in question has an exponential nature, and anywhere you see an exponential something that eventually explodes.

Finally, if you care about something not really spread it: the overcrowding is not good for anybody. And you can not fight an exponential.


[1] Then, as now there are too many people are familiar with the growth flattens out a lot - a trend similar to the logistic curve I think - but the damage is done.

How To Do Tech Deck Tricks Wiki

Facebukkake: a new way to socialize


Apparently, the whole of Facebook is only a sideshow scrape together enough information to build up a search engine and a user-oriented AdService [1] capable of challenging Google. At least that's what it appears that the article was devoted to the Wired 7.




say in Facebook Inc. ' Why should you settle for the articles on the failure of the Chrysler recommended by the algorithms of Google News, when you can read the ones recommended by friends? (see Wired No 7, p. 113.)
Why me, dear Zuckerberg, I have no friends among the world's financial experts and professors of economics at Harvard: if my contacts damn highly of the crisis of Chrysler (and do well). On the other hand I can not even think to remedy this fact by adding the above-mentioned experts among the friends of world finance, because your friend on Facebook in the form of a bilateral contract, and if they bump their highly of me and my friends (and do well) - not to mention the fact that I would not do because I want to give even a vague meaning to the word "friendship." To follow relevant personalities, and the content they produce, there are several types of instruments, such as Twitter, or RSS, or FriendFeed if only you had not cannibalized after having copied all the features most stupid [2] and the substance. The difference between them and Facebook, Zuckerberg dear, is that their profiles are open to the outside protected by default and those are a tiny minority. For the profiles of others you enter to follow, is not required to be reciprocated friendship: this means that I can have fast and direct access to the information I need without bothering anyone. I am interested in the work of Neil Gaiman? well, follow the profile of Neil Gaiman on Twitter and read what it does. I am interested in photos of Demi Moore's ass? well, follow the profile of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter and look at the link to tinypic.
In short, this is in part already disadvantaged. Facebook preclude access to any of the information is not interest of your personal contacts, and exclusively theirs. Do not you decide.


Let's see how the engine should ideally Facebook Search: I say you are looking for information about a movie I want to go see, say, Inglorious Basterds. Enter the name in the field of search engine and look for him in all the profiles of my contacts about that movie. What is it? "Nice, I liked that" "cool!" "Tonight we look at Inglourious Basterds:)". If I wanted to go to the polls was enough for me to check rottentomatoes.com (especially since the polls I do little or nothing, in fact I did not like the movie ). But the same would happen with any other film quite well known not to be the preserve of radical chic pseudointellettualoidi: what we expect to find? may appear in the "movies" of some user or other comments like "cool ABSURD I robottoni OF TRANSFORMERS." We have
instead of the movies that try to be more than niche probably will not find anything. Do not we all have friends who share the same tastes in music or cinema, on the other hand there are no constraints such friendship. How many notes
dedicated to critical analysis of a film you have ever seen? There. It is not a criticism, it is an observation, however if I place movie reviews do not see why I expect that others do, Sticazzi. The fact is that a sample of 120 to 200 people (your friends) is not quite enough to cover an adequate spectrum of film - unless one another and do not be Mereghetti Ghezzi, of course - or any interesting topic in general.
The only way to overcome this thing is to allow access - at least in research - to feed others, but this is called invasion of privacy, and Facebook users have demonstrated over and over again to hate (they have also reacted very badly the first attempt to publish guidelines, see the Wired article). I believe that virtually no one wants that your profile is accessible to all, from your parents who are curious to know why you joined the group "The hog god - Pets " or why their daughter to the test "as you in bed? " was "indomitable a slut." Well, not really.
Finally, add a Facebook Search is not very useful, if not directly for your contacts, in which case there's a little 'for added comfort, but nothing revolutionary. A little 'as the Blue-ray is just a DVD +.


What is not said of the strategy behind the startup is that Facebook is extremely precarious. All the future income of the company [3] depend only on the genuineness of this immense mass of information that we make them available to users. Let me explain.
An advertising service companies to sell a certain amount of appearances in the banner. If you are not organized, rain down at random on users, most of which will not be affected and react
ignoring the offer. The idea of \u200b\u200btargeted advertising instead of advertising the product is only from those users who are interested or can be - greatly increasing the effectiveness of advertising. Example: an emerging band released their first album and want to publicize it. The band's sound is very close to that of Built to Spill, so the banners are directed to users who are fans of Built to Spill: in this way are more likely to break / make money. It is therefore essential to know the preferences of retail users to organize the campaign.
data that is available at the moment are mainly genuine Facebook because - partly luck, partly because it is set [4] - accounts that reflect quite faithfully the lives of people outside the internet: the display name is true, friendships / knowledge are roughly the real thing, people become fans of artists who value and products that really truly loves, etc.. This is what made Facebook different from all previous social networks: we chose a possibly fanciful nickname, an avatar that did not have to represent our person, it was a bit 'the fuck you wanted. Information for publicity: next to zero.
In practice, all their hopes to build a targeted advertising, which is able to attract the big names in internet for now do not trust - Treasure Island of advertising that is - are based on the authenticity of that data, only and only on that.
Now, assume that one day, Google and Facebook are fighting the last - eh hypothetically - that battle, given the size of companies, will be no holds barred. We travel a bit 'fancy. What would prevent Google to play hard spending a bit 'of money to create a few million profiles-bot with a network of friends plausible? The reCAPTCHA can be inserted a bit 'at a time by real people (100 people entering, say, 2000 reCAPTCHA per day in a month they would have turned 6 million profiles) and once activated would act on their own, cultivating the friendship networks and expressing preferences and tastes fictitious that Facebook would not be able to distinguish from the real ones except with a considerable computational effort, computational effort that can not currently afford and that is precisely what he seeks to avoid. At this point, although the advertising would still be directed to the relevant users, it would be impossible to quantify them accurately and thus pricing the advertising campaign: no one would buy a wagon banner then, if the users are really interested only 2%.
Therefore, it is sufficient that data and pollute the whole strategy of Facebook goes to hell, the revenues expected are not forthcoming, the stock quotes in time was abandoned and the startup dies. At that point, Facebook is vulnerable to any new social network that provides the same functionality and even better graphics (not so difficult task), things like that.
If Google wants to play fair, will build a social network that is capable of incorporating all social networks - including Facebook - and offers more functionality unknown before. Oops, there already is Google Wave. He just needs to spread (by the way, if anyone has an invitation to read and do not know who to give it, here I am: Sior. Giggles [the bullet markers at] gmail. Com).

[Click the image to enlarge]

Finally, all this rigmarole is to make sense of one thing: my desire to get out of Facebook.

It was nice at first, news, groups, applications, games, news, and now begins to suck. For some months now, the home does not offer me anything, the contents are gone or have become very bad. The decline started when Facebook began to spread too much, and has been invaded by people who have a desperate need to feel a sense of belonging to something at least once a day - otherwise they feel lost in the cosmic void of their minds - and to do Create a group for any crap that comes to mind: "Those who only coffee without sugar " Those who wash their hands, then remembered that they were in the bathroom to pee, so he touches lavarsele twice! 1! " qll ke nn sn distnguere capable of a cell from a PC qnd skrivono " what I think is FiKo write so "" For all ke if i keep burping and fart "and so on (it's too easy to take the piss out of people so, no satisfaction of low quality). Or those groups that are" nice ", well, you have a message in your inbox: DO NOT LAUGH. Not to mention the people "involved" who still want to lynch Guillermo Vargas (idol) or comment on the news as the worst phony: "Bastards, it would take a revolution," "Guys, we need to give us to do, things we must change from below "etc etc.
The problem is not directly that Facebook is too widespread, the problem is that I am come into contact with a type of humanity I try to avoid as much as possible.

Why have not I go? I wish you could find a way to prevent hold my data and I have not found a decent replacement (Google is still betatesting Wave: see above). And then I'm terribly lazy.



Postscript:
There is much talk these days about the group, "Berlusconi Kill" (now has changed name), whether or not it is lawful to make such groups, though there may be criminal liability if there is censorship and blah blah blah. My opinion is that the groups are the virtual equivalent of facebook chat bar, if the banned groups also prohibited those at this point. But then, who cares.

[1] is what Google is trying to do with tons of math for years, with the Facebook project hope to reduce or even avoid it, I guess.


[2] Where do you think is the "like"? and the ability to comment on items posted to the dashboard? (See http://thenextweb.com/2009/01/12/facebook-getting-friendfeed-like-likes-the-similarities-continue/ ). Facebook has bought FriendFeed August 10, 2009.


[3] These revenues will be very substantial to support a huge demand of bandwidth - which will continue to grow with members - and a demand for storage that will not end until the social network will be built-up area: 850 million photos and video to 8 million month are felt. So much so that Facebook had announced that it planned to close in surplus before 2010, even though he has done it the same - I do not know how.


[4] not forget that Facebook, it tells you the name, was born originally as an online version of the Directory of universities and schools. It was natural that the first true members include your name and surname, and has been - for Zuckerberg & Associates - a fortune that users have taken the following example.