The Internet of Work Life Balance

Where does the internet fit into the equation of work-life balance1? What is the equation on work-life balance, anyway? Is it:

work + life = 24 hours/day

Better add sleep:

8 hours sleep + work + life = 24 hours/day

Are meals work or life? Sometimes we eat lunch at our desk, but then have a dinner date. If your company provides free food while you socialize with your coworkers and talk about sports, is that life? Is it work if you take a client to a sumptuous restaurant you couldn’t otherwise afford? There are times when it feels like work to have dinner with your in-laws, or your significant other’s friends.

To be on the safe side, I’ll make meals a neutral category. The use of ‘balance’ implies some kind of sameness, so:

24 hrs - 8 hours sleep - 1.5 hours of meals = 
          equal parts work and life

Ha! Not many of us achieve this, unless you consider commuting, showering etc. part of life. Oh, but I forgot weekends, which means I need to do the equation for a week:

7*(24 hours - 8 hours sleep -1.5 hours meals) 
- 5*(2 hrs commuting + 0.5 hours showering) 

= equal parts work and life 

= 89/2 hours 

= 44.5 hrs/week work and 44.5 hrs/week life

That looks ok. Granted 14.5 hrs on each of Saturday and Sunday are the life balance part, which leaves only 15.5/5 or slightly over 3 hours each work day for the life part.

Does the Internet go on the work side, or the life side, of the equation?

Most of us can answer if any given website, or app, is related to work or life. Can’t we? Facebook is usually friends, which must be life unless you’ve friended your boss and coworkers. Which sometimes you have. And sometimes not. Most businesses have a Facebook page, so when your friend starts a business, you get an invitation to like their page, which of course you do, because you’re friends. It can get a little awkward. I have friends who run businesses that I don’t buy from. And friends who run businesses that I frequent. They are all still my friends because I keep my mouth shut and put on my business-person pants, enabling me to appreciate there is a market for what my friends are selling, even if it isn’t me.

Well, that got as far as Facebook being a minefield of business-like bombs that could explode in your life.

A complicating factor: What do people mean when they say they are ‘on the Internet’? Do they mean anything digitally connected? When I say I’m on the Internet, I mean, I’m surfing. Using Google to find interesting stuff. When I’m using the Internet to post on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc, I consider I’m on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn etc. Similarly, if I’m sending email, I’m emailing, although that often is included in ‘using the Internet’. And technically, if using an app, whether it’s Uber to get a ride or your insurance company’s app to file a claim, you are using the app, which happens to run over the Internet.

Is the Internet ruining work/life balance? The premise is that with phone in hand we can always see work-related stuff. If I pick up my phone at 11:30 pm to answer a text from a friend about where we are going dancing the next night, and see a work-relate email which I answer in a few words, do I have a work-related imbalance in my life?

A good juxtaposition is studies that show how much time people spend on personal stuff ‘at work’. On the Internet. Assuming Netflicks is part of ‘being on the Internet’, 37% of people admit to watching Netflix at work2. Many companies block social media sites to increase employee productivity, which implies personal use of the Internet distracts from work. Does this help to balance work and life – that we use the Internet for work when we are at home and for life when we are at work?

The Internet has made this time-sharing easier. In days gone by, when you left work, the only way you could be contacted was via a landline, and only if you were at home and someone else wasn’t on the family phone. It was only done in dire emergencies. Similarly, the pre-Internet equivalent of watching Netflicks at your desk was reading a book. A very conspicuous not-doing-my-job activity.

I think balance is about choice. Sometimes I dedicate myself to work, but other times it’s okay to spend time on whatever personal thing is a priority3. And there’s inbetween times when even if I’m off work but find something of value to my job, I note it, or I’m at work and deal with a personal issue.

So the work/life balance equation looks like this for me:

Sleeping and eating 
      + doing a good job 
           + being friend, family and citizen

= using the internet to get these things done

QED4

3 as long as it’s legal and I’m not using the company name

4 which, despite what 1st year engineering students believe, does not mean Quite Easily Done

Please follow and like us:

No More Them.

I don’t like Them.

“It’s a time for choosing sides,” a wise person said to me recently. Not for staying neutral but for taking action. I agree. I’m going to get rid of Them.

How do I plan to remove Them from society, silence their voices and abolish their very existence? Non-violently. My goal is to exterminate the concept of Them.

Them are the Others. Could be Them are big business. Bad government. Men. Women. The Management. Some other group identified culturally, spiritually, by physical features, or an attitude or life choices or just about anything, like having big dogs, a certain model of car or coat.

Them are a group we build an imaginary fence around to distinguish them from Us. Them are often unsavoury because they have an agenda that’s different from ours, hard to understand, out of our control, oppressive, and we feel powerless to act against it. What’s not to fear and loathe?

That is definitely the Them I want to eliminate. No one needs Them.

We all have our ‘Them’s – groups we don’t understand who say or do things we disagree with. It is human nature to seek out those we connect with easily. Those who are Us. How do we get rid of our Thems?

The trick is to accept there is no Them. They are a group of people, like Us, but the differences stand out, rather than the similarities. Probably to both them and us. The fundamental premise for eradicating Them is that people are mostly the same. The key is seeing them as individuals that you have something in common with. Maybe it’s raising young children, an illness, a fear of flying, or love of Renaissance paintings. We’re all connected somehow.

How to see the connection?

This is a triskele, a symbol used by various cultures and groups over thousands of years. This version is celtic and said to represent unity of three disparate things: land, sea, and sky. As different and incompatible as these elements are, together they create the richness of the earth, flowers and trees and food for all of us.

For me, the triskele reflects what I do, bringing together groups or individuals that suspect they are different from each other but need each other. In my professional life, I’ve united investment bankers and scientists,1 academics and administrators, lawyers and inventors, investors and entrepreneurs, capitalists and socialists, scientists and the general public.

You’ll notice these are groups of two. But the triskele has three arms. What does the third arm represent? Someone who understands both sides of the situation and can explain it to the others in terms that make sense to them. There’s no Them when you realize what you share with the other people.

Any two people, or groups of people, regardless of how they want to group themselves, can find common ground if they understand each other’s motives and interests. This doesn’t mean everyone needs to agree on everything, or buy into all that everyone else thinks. If our lives intersect, there’s a way we can work together. The third arm, the connection, is key.

Join me. Help stomp out Them. Be a connector for two groups to understand each other. Make it personal. It won’t always end happily ever after, some times there will be agreement to disagree. But understanding where people are coming from is different from disliking a faceless group with incomprehensible ideas2.

If we’re all connected, there’s no Them.

I’ve chosen a side. I choose to side with Everyone. I’m living for the fundamental interconnectedness of Us.

—–

1 A simplified, hypothetical example: when the investment bankers see that an abstract invention, like say an internal combustion engine, has value because it can create a whole new, oat-free means of transportation that people will love for the convenience, scientists love it because their invention is useful, appreciated, and makes them some money so they can go on inventing new things, like self-driving cars.

2  Sort of like the difference between disagreeing with your sister over home schooling vs. disliking government policy on grade 3 curriculum. While you probably understand your sister, They definitely make the rules about public schools. But there are people who have made and institute the rules, people who are trying to deliver an educational system that balances costs, modern theories of education, keeping their jobs, and get the best for everyone’s kids. Disagree with the outcome if you must, not the people who are involved.

Please follow and like us:

Stop Helping, It’s not Helpful.

There is a fine art to understanding how, if, and when a customer wants to be helped. We’ve all experienced it: the difference between the poorly timed, inane, nagging questions and a salesperson who comes to your side just as a question about a product forms in your mind, adds insight to your shopping quest, and has you smiling at the check-out desk. Or the professional who distinguishes between when you’re in a hurry to find one, specific thing, vs. a leisurely browse that might see you buy an entire cartload of items.

The internet has taken the challenge of good customer service to a whole new level. It’s making me crazy. Why? Because pop-ups. There are many fine examples of using the internet to deliver better information about products, and ways to make products more accessible, both financially and physically. However, more thought could go into the implementation of some web browser popups.

Here’s a list of various pop-ups that miss the mark, at least for me:

  • Offering your newsletter before the site has even fully loaded. I don’t know who you are, what you do, or if I’ve clicked on a link by accident. So no, I don’t want your newsletter. Ditto alerts, updates and notifications. If you waited a bit, I’d be more likely to say yes. So wait a bit. In person, this would equate to a person with a clip board, standing at the store entrance, demanding ‘Do you like our store?’
  • Trigger happy sidebar ads, especially ones that scroll down the page with you. If I I’m interested in what you are selling, I’ll click on it. If I click by accident because of poor page design, I will hate your company for the rest of my life. It’s like a sales person holding up jackets when you’re browsing shoes and repeating: “How about this?” “How ’bout this?” “How bout this?” “How ’bout tis?”
  • Chat with an associate before I’ve even read a sentence. Put the dialog box away until an appropriate time to suggest it. Yes, it’s great you have people or bots to answer questions, but why do you have a website in the first place? So people can read about your company/product. This is especially true for logging into email and being offered chat with my friends. If I wanted to chat, I’d open a chat app. I’ve opened an email app, so guess what I want to do?
  • Why are the only two choices for getting rid of an ad that I don’t want to see: it covers the page1, or, it’s offensive? I have reasons for not wanting to see the ad. Maybe it reminds me of my ex-husband or dearly departed pet. Do you really want to push that negative association on me, so I can forever be repulsed by whatever is being promoted?
  • I don’t want extra windows to pop open with suggestions for helpful things like saving my passwords, adding people to my contacts, creating events in my calendar, or downloading an app to make what I’m doing easier2. It would be easier if I wasn’t constantly interrupted with popups trying to do things other than the one I’m trying to do. This is like trying to buy milk and bread while an over-zealous salesperson offers to determine my shoe size, the colour of my aura, or what my family history reveals about the perfect pet for me.
  • Requiring sign-in three screens into a site. There should be a flag (maybe like the toxic waste symbol) for sites that require creating an account to access the info they’re offering. Spending time on a landing page to get excited enough about the content to ‘click here to download’, only to find out that you need to surrender enough personal information for military clearance, is poor communication. Facebook and LinkedIn landing pages make it very clear that you are going nowhere without an account. It’s like getting to the check out at a store with some fabulous finds and discovering that the marked prices are only available to members. Who have signed up. With their personal information.
  • There should be a special place in hell for ads with a hard to find, or absent, close window ‘X’. This is the equivalent of a salesperson who doesn’t understand ‘I’m just looking’ as the signal to GO AWAY but instead follows you around the store, quipping useless information with each item you look at, oblivious to each new sneer.

Maybe everyone except me else loves pop-ups because they provide useful information. Most of us have things to do and don’t want extraneous pop-ups filling out lives with the need to swath though screens, like an explorer with a scythe in the jungle, to see what we came to see.

I might like pop-ups better if they added value. I am curious to know what conclusions fancy algorithms draw from my various searches and posts, akin to the fascination my rational self has with having my fortune read. A clever observer of people can conjure an accurate reading by observing and responding to their subject’s cues.

Know your client. In the modern era, that has to be done without invading privacy, which is how any good human salesperson has always done it – respecting the client’s preferences. The challenge is doing the same online. I’m sure someone or something will figure it out. Soon. Please.

——

1I’m probably being too honest because I won’t click on ‘it covers the page’ unless it covers the page. It only covers a third or a quarter of the page, so I don’t click.

2I realize this may not be the fault of the designer of the website I’m perusing. It’s the helpful operating system on my device. Still, back off.

Please follow and like us:

Evolving with Technology, or Is Fresh Air Good for You?

The perfect house: energy efficient, climate-controlled, with sweet filtered air inside. Want one? I don’t. To me, healthy living means opening a window to change the temperature in the house and rejoice in what the environment presents1.

I’m an environmental pig, living in a house designed over a century ago, lacking in the latest energy efficient technology. Instead, I have trees. Trees that shade my home and prevent the sun from beating extra kilojoules of energy, as heat, into my rooms. I have primitive geothermal cooling – an unfinished basement that breathes coolness into my main floor. My grandmother had something called a ‘root cellar’. A root cellar is on the cool side of the house (NE), in an area of the basement surrounded on four of its six sides by earth (top, bottom, north and east walls), and provides sufficient refridgeration to preserve carrots, potatoes and turnips.

Today’s ultimate ergonomic home, controlled with energy saving algorithms, has constant temperature regulation, purified air, and is tightly sealed from the outdoors. This provides cost effective heating and cooling2, and optimum air flow to prevent the growth of moulds and the like, with filters to cleanse contaminant particles from the air.

treesSounds great, but I don’t like it. Imagine instead opening a window to the heavenly smell of a summer rain, or when the roses are in bloom, or if the grass has just been cut. Wake in the morning to the sounds of the birds peeping and trilling through your open windows. Feel the caress of a breeze, floating in with the rhythimic chirp of the crickets on a hot summer night. Man, it’s good.

Which is better: the ecological, economical, sealed house, separating us from the nasty environment bent on messing with our equilibrium, or fresh air? Long ago, doctors prescribed fresh air to cure all kinds of ailments, obtained by sitting seaside as ocean gales hurled past. Today, we have polluted air and climate change that superheats and supercools our environment. We also seem to have heighened levels of environmental sensitivity, making many of us retreat into our climate-controlled isolation units.

I think there’s an instinctive attraction to fresh air, perhaps the converse of our repulsion for things that smell of bacteria, yeast or other microorganisms associated with death, disease and decay. When we smell clean water, or air scented with healthy growing things, we know there’s sustaining substances for us. The reek of animal waste makes us recoil, which is surely a good survival instinct, allowing us to avoid traipsing into the bear’s or lion’s den.

Ancient history? Do our instincts lag behind what’s useful in the modern world? I went looking to see if fresh air is still good for us. The first web search turned up organizations confirming fresh air was good for the soul. It cleanses, reduces stress, improves digestion, boosts the immune system and a number of general statements of limited substance. People believe that fresh air is good for us, perhaps based on how good it feels, but how about proof?

Science, where are you? Science says there are benefits to feeling as good as fresh air can make us feel. Fair enough.

One interesting study3 measured ventillation in 28 grade schools in California and compared it to sick days taken by students. It found the higher the rate of removal of CO2, the fewer sick days. This cleansing of the air, associated with less illness, was higher in classrooms with open windows than air conditioning. But that might just mean that traditional air conditioning isn’t very good at air exchange.

What is fresh air, exactly? Anyone who’s familiar with farm country, a bastion of wholesomeness, knows it often smells unpleasantly of manure. Different people might define fresh air as air that’s:

  • scented with pleasant things, like apple pie, or the sea,
  • has less CO2 and more O2,
  • low in irritants, or infectious agents, or
  • a comfortable temperature.

Googling ‘allergen free air’ is amusing. The first nine hits are businesses offering sources of air treatment, and the last one is for chimney cleaning4.

On Google Scholar, I found specific, detailed studies, such as:

  • dust-free pillow covers reduce allergic symptoms in a group of 30 kids,
  • Hepa filters decreased cat dander but did nothing for asthma symptoms in a handful of people,
  • fungus is higher inside than out in the winter in the US midwest.

This, of course, is the point. Science is very specific because sometimes it matters very much if you take one acetaminophen capsule today or one acetaminophen capsule per day, so we shouldn’t expect it to provide pronouncements on something as general as fresh air.

The US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) defines six things5 as hazardous to human health in air (at sufficient concentrations), all based on full arsenals of scientific research. Some of these harmful things are not smellable when you open the window after a summer rain. But I can’t accept that it’s better for people to stay inside a sealed building, even if it has perfect air quality.

Are my instincts betraying me, telling me outside is good? Are they antiquated notions, left over from a time when there was no pollution, climate change or crazy, invisible things in the environment that could harm me?

If my fresh air instincts give me a survival advantage, turning my yearning to spend time outside to increased health and longevity, then they are good instincts. But if those who stay inside are better off, don’t contract as many diseases because they are protected by their controlled environment, then my instincts will fade from the human repetoire. My line will die out while the earth is populated by the people who stay inside.

I don’t know the answer to who will win this evolutionary battle of survival strategies and it will take centuries or longer before anyone knows. The question is whether they will be living in a sealed, plastic dome or in the forest alongside the deer, mushrooms, and snails.

——

1 At least for half of the year, not when central heating is doing it’s best to keep the indoor temperature above 65oF/18oC, then I’m all about man-made heat.

2 I am told that it’s most efficient to control the temperature 7×24, rather than adjust it at will, as keeping the temperature constant is less energy intensive than sudden changes.

3 Mendell, M. J., Eliseeva, E. A., Davies, M. M., Spears, M., Lobscheid, A., Fisk, W. J., Apte, M. G. (2103) Association of classroom ventilation with reduced illness absence: a prospective study in California elementary schools. Indoor Air v23(6) doi10.1111/ina.12042 retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ina.12042/abstract

4 Probably because I have a wood burning fireplace and was looking for someone to clean it recently, but an admirable example of how sweet the smell of something (burning hardwood) can be but how unsure I am that it’s healthy

Please follow and like us:

Do I Know What’s Good for my Cat?

Recent moves by various governments have declared dolphins, dogs, cats, chimpanzees, and even animals in general, sentient beings1.

What does this mean – the definition of sentience is consciousness of sensory perceptions, but how does it specify the way animals should be treated? A declaration that animals are sentient, like humans, provokes visions of trying to get dolphins to vote or providing chickens with flying lessons if they want. We’d never force them, of course.

Most of us want to do the right thing by animals. Many scientists study sentience, consciousness, sapience, and/or intelligence in humans and various animals. If a crow recognizes a man who feeds him, is the bird self aware or intelligent or has it learned to associate the smell of the man’s cologne with tasty treats (sentient) or does it contemplate if it is taking advantage of the man as it peaks fruit from his hand (sapience)? I need to read a stack of books and papers at least three feet tall to understand how these terms differ from one another when applied to animal behaviour. I respect the experts, but would like to understand this at a non-expert level.

I did some research on the emerging laws related to animal rights and the answers surprised me. Generally, the idea is to give animals more rights than inanimate objects, and to stop them from being used solely for human entertainment. These new laws and declarations are one part getting the laws out of the dark ages and one part enlightenment.

Why was I surprised? There’s some hype attached to the announcements about the new laws. Somehow2 the concept that animals can sense and are aware of their surroundings, which is a definition of sentience, transmuted into animals having emotions. Certainly animals can feel things. However, it isn’t necessarily the same as a cat feeling sad because it’s raining and there’s no birds to watch or a horse being anxious that its rider has had a few martinis, again, and might need counselling for addiction. If we accept the definition of emotion as an instinctive or intuitive, rather than reasoned, interpretation of a situation, I’d point to the keen instincts animals have. And that the sad cat knows hunting (food) is less effective in the rain and the horse instinctively fears a reckless rider for its own safety.

Do animals love and hate? A dog gets excited when it sees its human, either because of love or the expectation of treats, and a dog growls when a stranger skulks around the yard, but does it hate the intruder or is it defending its territory.

The new laws are to stop animals from being handled in ways that injury them. Previously, animals could be treated in the same way as all types of human possessions (this is the dark ages stuff). No one cares if you hit your table. A lot of people care if you hit your dog. The change in laws make it easier for officials to intervene if someone is doing something harmful to their sentient possessions (animals). Changing the laws so we cause no physical pain to animals seems like the right thing to do.

More interesting are the decisions to stop using animals for our entertainment3 – which I call the enlightened part. In the absence of direct pain and suffering, how do we tell if the animals are being treated well? We associate a cat purring with contentment, but they also purr when they are in pain. So if the cat purrs when stuffed into a silly outfit, is it thrilled or distressed? Is there something wrong with training an elephant to sit on a tiny stool while wearing a flowery hat? Or a walrus to clap it’s flippers and bark for fish? Taking a slightly riskier stance, why shouldn’t we drug tigers into passivity and make them jump through hoops, if the fringe benefits that come with that is a rich diet, medical care, and comfy accommodations? None of these actions are natural but putting on a suit and going to a job interview where we try to say all the right things, regardless of what we really think, is unnatural too.

Wearing a suit is voluntary. The confinement of animals in the circus and other entertainment domains is not. How do we get informed consent from a killer whale? Many people might claim they are trapped in jobs, unable to escape the drudgery or demeaning tasks because they need to make a living.

How do we tell when we’ve gone too far with animals? With sea animals, there are scientists who study the social structures the animals live in and compare it to what we provide. And yes, there is a difference between sea worlds and the wild. One point of evidence that the animals are being treated unfairly is a decreased life expectancy. This seems like a reasonable metric, but when I look at my domestic cats, who are kept indoors because this is verified to increase their life expectancy, I wonder if it’s right. My cat is convinced he should be outside, yet I imprison him in the house, based on the assumption that it’s better for him. I have some guilt, because I reap advantages, with lower vet bills. No worms, fleas, or stitches to repair battle wounds from the neighbouring tom, raccoons, dogs or cars. Domestic cats live longer inside, but are they living a fulfilling life? They don’t breed or do other natural things like hunt nor are they allowed the full range of a territory or their natural habitat.

Questions plague me:

  • How to know what animals really want?
  • What’s best for animals, which may not be what they want?
  • How human-like are they, anyway?

We should only impose our values on the animals when we know they want the same things we do. We could defend all we do as sapience, or wisdom, a quality that presumably sets us apart from other species (hence the name: Homo sapiens). We understand the consequences of our actions, and therefore agree to get vaccinated, even if it is transiently unpleasant.

Humans don’t do whatever we want, we often do what’s good for us, like go to the dentist, eat vegetables and learn mathematical formulas. My cat hates going to the vet and howls like a wild animal when I put him in the car. I don’t think this qualifies as mistreatment, even thought he clearly thinks it does. On the contrary, many decisions to give animals more rights insist on good veterinary care, although the animals dont’ seem to like it.

I haven’t got a witty conclusion to this post. The new laws to treat animals as sentient are to prevent cruelty. We’re striving for enlightenment in our interactions with animals, but I think we have a long way to go to figure out what that means. I’m looking forward to the day when I can communicate with my cat (maybe through artificial intelligence), and let him make the decision to get in the carrier and endure the vet’s prodding, as a alternative to dying prematurely of a preventable disease.

——

1Here’s a few examples:

This blog post http://barkpost.com/good/oregon-court-finds-dogs-are-sentient-beings/ discusses a recent decision by an Oregon court to treat dogs as sentient. It’s a great post for making sense of the law.

A similar story comes from New Zealand http://www.animalequality.net/node/703 , where the law was amended in 2013 and this is interpreted to recognize all animals as sentient, like humans, which provides officials greater power to protect animals in situations of abuse.

And then there was a declaration of by a group of scientists in 2012 http://www.earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious/ that non-human animals display consciousness.

2 Not too difficult to imagine how if you consider how easily knowledge is perturbed from the truth and circulated as un-facts on the internets.

Please follow and like us:

The Case of the Mysterious Octopus DNA

Sometimes, exciting scientific things sound lame, so an editor puts a fancy headline on the story to avoid having the average person say ‘MEH’ to a breakthrough. Such could be the case with octopus DNA, and a story titled: ‘Scientific Breakthrough: Octopus DNA is not from this world.’1 Were you skeptical of this headline? Was it because it sounded impossible, preposterous, almost as crazy as someone suggesting the earth is flat or red wine protects against heart disease?

I’m working on a process, a series of five questions, to get an un-hyped understanding of popular media stories on scientific topics. So, let me apply my questions to the octopus situation. By seeing the logic with the octopus DNA story, it may make my method easier to apply to less obvious situations, or situations where your intuition is saying ‘that’s wrong’ but you can’t put your finger on why.

Question 1. What do the numbers really mean?

More numbers might have helped this story. The premise is octopuses are alien and their DNA sequence supports it. How different is their DNA? That wasn’t discussed. But elements in the octopus DNA were found, such as genes, coding sequences, and transposable elements, commonly found in humans and other native earth species. Therefore, octopus DNA can’t be entirely alien.

The story states that Octopuses have 33,000 protein coding genes, far more than humans. Makes them sound more complex, more intelligent, doesn’t it? Until you see this chart2, that ranks number of genes per species and finds grapes ahead of humans. The story could have said that octopuses have more genes than grapes, but that doesn’t sound very special, does it?

2. Is the science in the story from a reliable source and quoted in context?

The original basis of the story was published in the journal Nature, a very reputable source, in Aug. 2015. It does not contain the word ‘alien’. The alien DNA story came along later, quoting a news release titled ‘Landmark sequencing of octopus genome shows basis for intelligence, camouflage’. Neither of these traits are uniquely alien – you can make your own bad pun about how alien intelligence seems in human society sometimes. Camouflage is pretty common in the animal kingdom, ask the spotted leopard lounging in the dappled shade.

How did the story get to be about aliens? A scientist is quoted, who quotes another scientist. The first scientist points out how unusual a the octopus body is. You don’t need a DNA sequence to discover that. All you have to do is observe the octopus and it’s ability to change skin colour with situation, escape predators in a cloud of ink, or unscrew a jar if it’s worth their while. The misrepresented comment is: “The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien.”1 There have been others who call the octopus alien3, but I believe it’s metaphorical, rather than scientific, even if the quoted individuals were learned professors.

From an evolutionary perspective, octopuses ON EARTH split from the lineage that lead to humans about 500 million years ago. Whatever your definition of alien is, if a creature been somewhere for that long, I think it deserves to be called native.

3. Is the evidence proven or inferred?

The story bounces around through various biological terms, which are connected incorrectly. It states the octopus has ‘incredibly advanced biotechnology’. Biotechnology is not naturally occurring. Biotechnology is technology engineered to make industrial products in a lab based on biologics. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has seen octopuses directing lab operations. There’s mention of transposons, which the story says scientist don’t understand, a spring board to the conclusion that there is something really alien going on in the octopus nerve cells. Why the leap to nerve cells, when DNA specifies what goes on in all cells? Or the conclusion that because scientists don’t understand something, it’s alien. Scientists don’t understand lots of things, like Alzheimer’s disease, selfies, and reality TV, but that doesn’t make them alien.

4. Who has a stake in this?

The folks who posted this story have a long-standing, popular website that deals with spiritual and scientific matters. Perhaps their mission was to demonstrate how science could be taken out of context. Or what the word alien means to different people.

5. Why hasn’t someone done something about this?

Should octopuses be treated differently, now that we know their DNA sequence? I don’t see a reason that the eight-tentacled, water-dwelling creatures are different now that we know more about their biological blueprint.

It’d be easier to declare octopus DNA alien if we had some alien DNA to compare to. It’s not evidence of alienicity that all octopuses have a certain trait, like the ability to change the colour of their tentacles, when no other species on earth can. That means only octopuses can do it, not they are alien. With the same logic, we might conclude that humans are aliens, because we are the only earth species that buys lottery tickets, or wears sunscreen so we can withstand the blistering hot, burning sun, rather than lie in the shade like other sun-sensitive species.

A similar story, with an equally provocative title and equally modest explanation of what’s so exciting is ‘Orangutan DNA is full of surprises’4. Having read the report, I agree, but unless you are a geneticist, I’m not sure the findings will hold the same fascination. Sure, the study told us things we didn’t know before. Orangutans evolve more slowly than humans or chimpanzees (these three are closest evolutionary relatives to each other). This slow rate of change in orangutans could be related to how many transposable DNA elements they have. In the case of orangutans, their DNA contains fewer transposons, and they have evolved slower than humans or chimps. The octopus, on the other hand, has more transposable elements and is more adaptable to changes in its environment.

By the logic of the octopus story, orangutans are less alien that humans. I’ve never seen an orangutan buy a lottery ticket, or apply sunscreen, have you?

3 Such as ‘ “Meeting an octopus,” writes Godfrey-Smith, “is like meeting an intelligent alien.” ‘ from https://orionmagazine.org/article/deep-intellect/

Please follow and like us:

What if your Doctor was an AI? Part 2

Imagine what it might be like to visit your doctor in the future, if your family doctor was an AI.

The first thing I realize is I don’t have to go anywhere. The AI can talk to me online. Cool. Humm. Will it mind if I’m still in my pyjamas? I wouldn’t want it to think I’m depressed, so perhaps I’ll find some clothes.

Come to think of it, I don’t need to book a visit. If the doctor is online and can run multiple sessions simultaneously, I don’t need an appointment, I can just login. After I get dressed.

No waiting and no waiting room is really cool. In real life, I feel bad for fellow patients who are sniffling and sneezing, but don’t need to share their bugs. Nor do I want to give anyone else my infestation, which for the sake of this exercise is some kind of respiratory thing that won’t go away.

I sit down in front of my computer screen and wait for Dr. AI to appear, after logging into my account that has all of my medical history available for the doctor. It probably has analysis of all of my social media posts, search queries, and everything other bit of information that can be gleaned from the Internet of Things, like what I bought at the grocery store, meals out, number of steps taken and activity log obtained from the appliances in my house and clothes that monitor what I do on a minute-by-minute basis.

I feel a little nervous as I wait for the session to initialize. I’ve always felt a little nervous visiting the doctor, sort of the same vague unease most people feel when a police cruiser appears in their rear-view mirror. Significantly, this is the same feeling I get when I see my human doctor. Slightly apprehensive that something really serious could be wrong with me, or that I’ll be called out for some unhealthy practice. We all have them. Things we love but know aren’t good for us. French fries. Cake. Lounging on the couch instead of going to fitness class.

Dr. AI appears. Probably not on screen because that will be so early 21st century technology. Some embodiment of a human-like avatar in a lab coat materializes in my augmented visual range. In the near future, I think AI’s will maintain a plasticy look, clearly distinguishable from Homo sapiens, because that’s what we’ll be comfortable with.

Dr. AI appears to greet me: “Hello, [different tone of voice] Ms. [another tone of voice] Dulhanty. May I call you Ann?”

“Sure. But it’s Dr.”

“At your service.” It bows slightly.

I’m not convinced I’ve gotten my message across, which is my title is Dr. not Ms., but since it isn’t important, I don’t push it. That is rather like talking to a human.

Dr. AI sails on. “Your vitals suggest … Do you feel feverish? Been to a farm or agricultural depot recently?”

“No. ”

“Your genotype suggests a family history of …”

“Do I need a vaccination against the new virus they’ve found in Milwaukee?”

“No.”

“Why?”

“Not called for in your case.”

This is exactly like talking to a human who has too many things to do. I go to the preferences on my healthcare interface and adjust them.

Dr. AI says “Ok. Redirecting.” Then smiles reassuringly. “Why didn’t you say so.” And details the pathology of new virus, risk factors associated with infection, epidemiological data, and toxicology, along side relevant information about me and those in my household, from genetics to how many tissues I used yesterday (cached in my browser).

I dabble at the information over the rest of the afternoon, follow a number of links to various opinions on the interpretations of the data. When I have questions, at 3:16 pm, 5:01 and after dinner, Dr. AI cheerfully chimes in with answers. Another cool thing: medical advice on my clock, not jammed into a 15 minute session.

By the next morning I’m not satisfied. There’s a shadow of a doubt in my mind, so I message Dr. AI, having realized that I can communicate with my physician in real time, at my discretion, like I would any service provider. “I’d rather have the shot. There are few risks, so better to have it.”

Dr. AI answers, “Of course, I’ll write the prescription. Your medical insurance is set to the appropriate level of discretionary care.”

A small drone appears outside my house 7 minutes later. As I extend my arm to open the door to find out what it’s delivering, it whirs in and I feel a slight prick in my upper arm. My mobile blips with a message about the possible side effects of the vaccine administered.

Fifteen minutes later, Dr. AI appears in avatar. “All your vitals are normal – no acute reaction detected.” He snaps a folder icon closed. “I’ll monitor your feeds tomorrow for latent effects, and will only contact you if there is reason for concern. Good night.”

Wow. Now that’s service1.

1Not to say I am complaining about the service provided me currently by my family doctor or any other health professional. Ok, I kinda am, but blame the constraints they are under in the healthcare system in Ontario, not their intentions.

Please follow and like us:

What if your Doctor was an AI?

This year’s MedEdge Summit. York Region – MedTech conference was affirming. Inspiring in a creative kind of way, rather than the eye-opening, mind-numbing advances in technology that make you think you’ve been hiding in a foxhole with a metal bowl on your head for the past 70 years. We’re on the right track with our crazy, cutting-edge technology to doing something useful. Things are falling into place, in a crooked, bottom of a kaleidoscope pattern.

Ok, there was still some wild stuff discussed, like patients being in charge of their own medical data and sequencing an entire human genome in a few days. Those are the beginning of approaches that I think will turn out well in the long term.

Today, even if we’re presented with our entire genomic sequence on a silver tray, no one knows what most of it means. But we will some day. Until then, we’ll keep doing those studies that give us a bit more evidence what the sequence of 11q21.3 means if you have green eyes and are good at cricket.

Right now, having people control their own medical records is like giving a four year old the keys to the car. Most of us don’t have the training to understand the data we’re presented with. As a small segue, when I was 15, I found my medical file open on a desk. A nurse chided me for reading it. I looked at her in wonder, ‘but, it’s about me.’ She snapped the file shut. In retrospect, we were both right. She took it away because it was written in a language that would confuse or misguide most people, so it wouldn’t be to the patient’s benefit to see it. But, information about me should be my property. That’s seems to be how modern privacy laws are playing out.

Let’s get to the exciting stuff: artificial intelligence. I can see it being useful in medicine because AI could provide the kind of assistance only AI is capable of. An enormous number of researchers are learning new things about human health all the time. Expecting your friendly family doctor to read 100’s of papers a day, while he or she works full time meeting with patients, assessing their conditions and suggesting a growing number of preventative approaches, is just crazy. They are only human.

Enter Artificial Intelligence. It’s particularly good at assimilating vast quantities of information that arrive over long periods of time. It doesn’t need to wrack its brain to put together one study published in South Africa in 2009 with another one from Sweden in 2016 to collect information about a rare disease. That’s easy-peasy for AI and the basis of how we learn about human health. Dozens of separate studies, done in different ways, by different people, come together to lead us to new knowledge. Rarely does one report change medical practice. AI also can provide us with the benefits of analyzing the activities of billions of people. Rumour1 has it that Microsoft was able to find common symptoms that people searched on before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. AI can provide an up-to-the-microsecond summation of all that’s relevant to a patient’s condition.

Great, as far as it goes. But it stops at the sum of all human knowledge and behaviour. Could AI possibly deal with uncertainty and lack of answers better than the current, malpractice-avoidance approaches? AI probably isn’t capable of caring or being sympathetic. In my experiences, this has been all but beat out of the current medical system, with quotas to deliver, expectations to manage, and routinized care. I long for the time when the doctor put the chart down, smiled and said, ‘you’ll be fine. It’s just a bug/growing pains/aging/over exertion/gas/random. Come back and see me in a week if it isn’t better.’

How is AI going to provide us with common sense, perspective, or talk us down from the fear we are dying of an incurable but totally improbably disease? Maybe it can. To my way of thinking, many of the situations where patients need to be told things are ok are based on the natural variability of the human body. Guidelines usually have a range for things like blood pressure, heart rate, levels of cholesterol and more. What does it mean when someone is outside the normal range? More tests can be done for explanations that might be pathological. When those turn up negative, the physician is left with no explanation and the possibility of natural variation. The doctor may have a hard time saying so, just in case there’s something going on. AI could at least quantify the answer with something like ‘there’s only a one in 500 chance of this’, or ‘a one in 248 chance of that’.

How will AI deal with situations when patients need to be consoled? We all die eventually and at some point many of us will need to be told we have a terminal or very serious condition. Will AI develop algorithms to read a person’s expressions and body language so it can tailor its delivery to each patient, or will it defer to its human equivalent? Let the doctor do what may have attracted them to medicine in the first place – care for their patients.

Please follow and like us:

Privacy. Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself. And Third Party Use of Data.

‘What do we fear could happen if we put our personal information online?’ A question I came across while researching internet privacy. Simple but brilliant, because the answer didn’t come easily to me. Like washing my hands before meals, I do it, but why?

Should I be concerned that I’ve made numerous posts on Facebook about my love of beer, my Twitter account reflects an interest in rock music, and how these leisure activities align with the professional profile I try to maintain on LinkedIn?

If I ran for Prime Minister, which I wouldn’t, what might someone turn up to incriminate me? Not that I’ve done anything terrible. That’s the thing. Fear may be rooted in how some mundane piece of information could be spun. With a little information, say that I’m an avid poker player, what horrible portrait could be drawn of me – the gambling addiction? Or my fascination with guns. (I played paint-ball war games once in 1986.)

We all have our hobbies. Many people fear that their, ahem, socially-shared, social interactions (i.e.. partying) will be frowned upon by future employers. Stories of job interviews ending in a request for Facebook passwords still float around, despite the clear invasion of privacy. Snapchat, with posts that disappear without a trace unless someone downloads them, may resolve the drunken photo-share problem. Social media is worrisome because of the foreverness of it. Can something we did years ago, that everyone’s forgotten about because it isn’t a habitual activity, come back to haunt us?

Not only can we fear the past being exhumed, there’s little to protect us from the practice of tracing our day to day web browsing activity. On average, I go to 20 different sites in a day. What does my cumulative surfing activity tell a keen marketing algorithm? The practice of tracking user activities (searches and website visits) may provide smarter observations about our tendencies than we can come up with ourselves. Is this a valuable service or an annoyance of spam and suggestive selling?

Some fears are rooted in reality. Identity theft. Credit card fraud. Or being sold something you don’t need because you’re vulnerable, like forest fire damage insurance. Don’t you feel bad for people who make a silly mistake and get caught on social media, like calling in sick to work when they aren’t, or ruining a surprise proposal or party. We all have lapses in judgement occasionally.

Privacy is a fundamental right. If I don’t want you to know ‘that’, then it’s my right to keep ‘that’ private. But often, it isn’t on web forms. How many have you filled out where a phone number is a required field even though you can’t see the need for one, but can’t place your order without it? More annoying is the site that insists you create an account, or ‘sign up’, with the requisite disclosure of personal information. I say NO to those sites because I’m convinced they get more out of me becoming a member than I do.

Most of us know it’s possible to track websites visited and location through the GPS on mobile phone. However, in one study, while 90% of a group of experienced internet users say they know what a cookie is, only 15% can actually answer questions correctly that demonstrate they really know what cookies are1. We may be vaguely aware that online actions are traceable, don’t know what does it really means, or what could someone do with the information. Facebook reportedly2 looks into browser history to target ads to users. If an organization is profiting by selling information about me, without my knowledge, that does not sound right.

Back to the original question – how much harm can be done if a company knows I’ve researched hemorrhoids, looked up recipes for grasshoppers, visited six shoe shopping sites, and watched way too many cat videos? It might be embarrassing, but it won’t ruin my love life, empty my bank accounts, or set fire to my car. Still, I’m uneasy about what’s being done with my personal information, because I don’t know what’s being done with it. I’m not alone. This study3 suggests only 28% of people in a group of about 1500 agreed with the following statement: ‘what companies know about me from my behavior online cannot hurt’.

I don’t have the answer to ‘what do I fear will happen if my personal information is online’. I don’t need to. I wash my hands, without knowing if a bacteria, virus or fungus is lurking, waiting to infect me, or how serious an infection it might cause. Similarly, I’m concerned that something sick and disabling might be done with my online personal information, so I’m cautious of what I share.

1 from Luzak, J. (2014) Privacy Notice for Dummies? Towards European Guidelines on How to Give “Clear and Comprehensive Information” on the Cookies Use in Order to Protect the Internet Users’ Right to Online Privacy J Consum Policy 37:547-559

Please follow and like us:

What I Discovered at Discovery 2016 – Business with a Social Agenda

It’s that time of the year. Time to find out who has new ideas about turning which emerging technology into business at the annual OCE Discovery showcase.  With 3,000 other people, I spent a couple days networking, listening to keynote speakers from companies like Tesla, engaging with clever entrepreneurs, and hobnobbing with all the other folks who make innovation happen in Ontario.

I go to Discovery to learn: about what my colleagues are doing, new trends in business and technology, and new words1. There are always surprises.

Automobiles, obviously not new business but full of new technology, were big this year. In addition to a keynote speaker from Tesla, a panel with representatives from GM, Ford, Hyundai and IBM talked cars. First surprise – artificial intelligence is a driving force in the auto industry. I’ve been so focused on the philosophical aspects of how AI will impact humanity I forgot it would be soon be deployed in an everyday task. To drive cars.

A bigger surprise – the extent of the discussion on ethical issues related to electrical vehicles and autonomous driving vehicles. I can’t remember another instance at a business-focused conference where there was such thorough forethought (i.e. the opposite of afterthought) and time spent on considering the consequences to society and the environment related to a popular consumer product.

For the electric vehicles, the driving force behind the innovation is to cut carbon emissions and reduce global warming. But discussion didn’t stop there. Concern was expressed about the impact of the lithium in the batteries. This was countered by the responsible practices used in lithium mining, and the that the batteries are (almost) infinitely renewable, unlike fossil fuels that are burned and exhausted into the atmosphere. Of course, the source of energy for electric cars is electricity, the batteries are only the conduit, so the overall environmental foot print depends on the source of the electricity.

For autonomous or self-driving cars, there are many positives, including decreasing human suffering by eliminating human error as a cause of car accidents, and increased efficiency in route selection, leading to lower emissions (decreased driving times and less idling) and costs to maintain the roads. Cars that can drive themselves will be more convenient for human passengers, dropping them off at their destination and going to park themselves, saving fuel and decreasing human frustration.

Considerable concern lingers about the types of decisions the AI in an autonomous vehicle might make. In an emergency situation, it may be necessary to make a choice of who to protect from harm. If a collision between a pedestrian can only be averted by the car steering into a pole, which would be done? Does it matter how many people are in the car, how old each is, what their occupation, education or criminal record is? This is a truly scary thing to contemplate. But, encouragingly, auto- and AI-makers have thought about it.

Continuing on the theme of cars, Zipcar  is a company with a model for decreasing the impact to the environment of our transportation systems. Zipcar allows people to share cars owned by the company, in a very user friendly way. This should decrease the overall number of cars on the planet and therefore the energy and waste associated with manufacturing and recycling the vehicles. Robin Chase, cofounder of Zipcar, gave a keynote address where she elaborated on her idea2 that a solution to global warming lies in applying Zipcar principles to many other aspects of life: by using unused capacity we can decrease the world’s overall consumption of stuff. Her ideas are rooted in social change, but refreshingly embrace big business.

I found additional social innovation on the Discovery show floor, there were aisles dedicated to initiatives with accessibility-providing-technology, such as accessto.ca that lists restaurants, bars and cafes, describing how accessible their physical space is. There was also an area highlighting social enterprises.

Was the OCE Discovery program socially focused this year? I’m not sure I want to delve into motives. I’ll just enjoy the well-rounded perspective I discovered at Discovery on how tech business is developing.

1I learned the word fintech this year. This means new technological approaches to finance. Stuff like bitcoin.

2This is the subject of a book she is currently promoting, http://www.peersincorporated.com .

Please follow and like us: