Trump to win?

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

The destruction of Nokia was not enabled by European politicans and, if the Elop was a Microsoft plant, he only hastened the inevitable. The iPhone caught practically everyone by surprise and destroyed most of them. I remember very clearly a conference I attended in 2007 before the iPhone was announced. The speaker was from Nokia (I commented that he looked like Legolas ) and one of the slides showed the market share of mobile phone providers in the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. was a fragmented market then with no vendor having a significant market share (I think maybe 10% or 20% was the market share of the biggest player) while in Europe, Nokia was clearly the dominant maker of mobile phones with well over 50% of the market. A few short years later and Nokia was no longer a player.

Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry. These once major players in the mobile phone industry are now all roadkill thanks to the iPhone and Android.

2001 - 2003 I was based in Washington DC trying to establish a Video-911 system for the entire USA via access my rights provided by three US telecom patents and as such was a regular invited attendee at the Andrew Seybold Wireless Dinners http://andrewseybold.com/events/wireless-dinner where, just before the first launch of the iPhone, Andrew openly stated that he would be surprised if the iPhone sold a million in the first year.......

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Nothing surprising, everyone censors their websites, it's their own right, even this forum deletes posts it doesn't like without any notice.

The search technology is no longer a secret. If Merkel doesn't like it, she should create her own search engine for Germany just like China and Russia. There's enough german speakers to make such a search engine commercially viable.

I would agree, right up until it hits that point it achieve monopolistic dominance.

A world where search and social categories have diversity of thought/ownership possesses less risk of politically motivated malignancy.

An artificial world of 3 rough parity search/social businesses where one is caught with their hands in the political bias/influence cookie jar would likely suffer and would be disincentivized from doing so to begin with.

In the real world, with no large scale alternative to Google and Facebook there's much less of a disincentive to fiddle, shape, and influence things to achieve their own political outcomes.

This upcoming January, the same month as the Inaugeration, will coincidentally be the 35th Anniversary of the breakup of Ma Bell:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CHgUN_95UAw

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SvesMBkduQo

The last time the word monopoly was used in Europe regarding US tech companies was Microsoft.

That ended fairly quietly, for 3 reasons I believe(my opinion):

1)Microsoft did a horrible job at "non market activity" such as political lobbying

2)Microsoft dominance was quickly waning.

3)I suspect a large/unspoken reason for the push from EU countries(and the reason why China's government didn't use Windows) was to gain equal or near equal access to Windows source code and backdoors for offensive/defensive intelligence operations.

Today Google and Facebook are unfortunately doing a fantastic job at "non market activity"(political lobbying) learning from Microsoft's failure make them more resistant to external political pressure.

And the ethereal and nebulous attribution of their revenue/profit makes them a more difficult target for sovereign states to counter.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

The destruction of Nokia was not enabled by European politicans and, if the Elop was a Microsoft plant, he only hastened the inevitable. The iPhone caught practically everyone by surprise and destroyed most of them. I remember very clearly a conference I attended in 2007 before the iPhone was announced. The speaker was from Nokia (I commented that he looked like Legolas ) and one of the slides showed the market share of mobile phone providers in the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. was a fragmented market then with no vendor having a significant market share (I think maybe 10% or 20% was the market share of the biggest player) while in Europe, Nokia was clearly the dominant maker of mobile phones with well over 50% of the market. A few short years later and Nokia was no longer a player.

Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry. These once major players in the mobile phone industry are now all roadkill thanks to the iPhone and Android.

I think Europe is just moving on to focusing on higher value add and less competitive industries over the past 20 years. You could see this from the way Siemens AG sold off their mobile phone, PC and appliance business way before their US counterparts such as GE and IBM.

Consumer products are just too competitive and the hype rarely last for more than 10 years before cheap "compatibles" flood the market. Even for iPhone, I can foresee that within 4-5 years, cheap Chinese "android compatible" devices like Yun OS will be flooding the market.

I currently use an iPhone for business use, not because I like it - the new generation of iPhone sucks compared to old ones like iPhone 4, but because of trend (a better term for hype). Given a choice, I will use a Mi.

Standalone and Internet software can easily be replaced if consumers are given the incentive to change, just like how people switched from Windows OS to MacOS because of hype. Infrastructure, where there is hardware and software combined is much harder to replace - and to outsource. You can outsource a Fortune 500's entire IT department to India, but you can't outsource the maintenance and management of a power plant system to India.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

this is one of the things that baffle me about Europe...

Nokia, back when it was a behemoth, was in the process of developing/building its own smartphone OS (Meego). Then there was a MS takeover (first by installation of Stephen Elop as CEO, later the buyout of the cellphone division by MS), and subsequent destruction of the Nokia cellphone business.

Now internet search, social media and cellphone software is now almost exclusively controlled by US companies, some with very close ties to US government.
Are European politicians really that naive?

The destruction of Nokia was not enabled by European politicans and, if the Elop was a Microsoft plant, he only hastened the inevitable. The iPhone caught practically everyone by surprise and destroyed most of them. I remember very clearly a conference I attended in 2007 before the iPhone was announced. The speaker was from Nokia (I commented that he looked like Legolas ) and one of the slides showed the market share of mobile phone providers in the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. was a fragmented market then with no vendor having a significant market share (I think maybe 10% or 20% was the market share of the biggest player) while in Europe, Nokia was clearly the dominant maker of mobile phones with well over 50% of the market. A few short years later and Nokia was no longer a player.

Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry. These once major players in the mobile phone industry are now all roadkill thanks to the iPhone and Android.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

I hope you then realized how absurdly unlikely that is.

iTulip is a very diverse community with some great thinkers and the man is, after all, just another; if he has an open mind, he will find such debates of use and sometimes inspirational, as we do; so why not? Yes agreed, he is certainly not going to do so openly, but that is an obvious aspect. Unlikely, yes; absurd, certainly not.

[FrankL]

Re: Trump to win?

Nothing surprising, everyone censors their websites, it's their own right, even this forum deletes posts it doesn't like without any notice.

The search technology is no longer a secret. If Merkel doesn't like it, she should create her own search engine for Germany just like China and Russia. There's enough german speakers to make such a search engine commercially viable.

this is one of the things that baffle me about Europe...

Nokia, back when it was a behemoth, was in the process of developing/building its own smartphone OS (Meego). Then there was a MS takeover (first by installation of Stephen Elop as CEO, later the buyout of the cellphone division by MS), and subsequent destruction of the Nokia cellphone business.

Now internet search, social media and cellphone software is now almost exclusively controlled by US companies, some with very close ties to US government.
Are European politicians really that naive?

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

Certainly, I have wondered if President Obama reads iTulip?

I hope you then realized how absurdly unlikely that is.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

I wonder if Angela Merkel reads iTulip?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...ess-algorithms

Nothing surprising, everyone censors their websites, it's their own right, even this forum deletes posts it doesn't like without any notice.

The search technology is no longer a secret. If Merkel doesn't like it, she should create her own search engine for Germany just like China and Russia. There's enough german speakers to make such a search engine commercially viable.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

I wonder if Angela Merkel reads iTulip?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...ess-algorithms

Certainly, I have wondered if President Obama reads iTulip?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Conformity results collapse dramatically when the participant has the opportunity to make anonymous, non-public decisions.

When your choices/decisions are public and you are overwhelmingly(particularly unanimously) opposed then conformity is consistently much, much higher.

Conformity degrades when the experiment participant has a decision "partner". If the "partner" is removed, conformity again increases.

I have also used the Milgrim Experiment as part of the same training package. While it's a highly unethical experiment(due to psychological risk to people participating under experimental observation) unlikely to be conducted again in the west, the results are quite troubling.

I would agree with Woodsman that the experiments are not designed to accurately determine independent/outlier/persistant "devil's advocate" type non conformity.

We know such behaviour exists(both good and bad) and I'd like to see more(I'm sure some already exists) data sets on it.

Another tool I used for my training package were clips from original film "12 Angry Men", mainly for strategies influencing from a position of weakness.

Henry Fonda was brilliantly perfect in that role, and the perfectly executed ambush the character conducted shifting from minority "fence sitting" subtle influencer to switchblade armed pre-planned ambushed is a great experiential learning tool.

The only other actor I could imagine in that role is Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda's personal friend and personal ideological opposition(Ford was a "raging dirty communist" and Stewart was a USAF hero pilot right winger).

Power Distance Index, which relates to low level conformity to authoritarian power structures I was told directly by Baba Shiv, Stanford GSB Professor that it is actually New Zealand closely followed by Australia that possess the least conformity to authoritarianism although it sounds like some other western countries(US included) that follow behind them.

I take him at his word(great guy) but haven't found any national/cultural rankings for PWI.

Make note: I'm no psychologist.

So like a "barracks room lawyer" everything I write, take it with a kilogram of salt.

I've just been taught some interesting concepts and have been following up with my own off the shelf open source R&D of a prototype innovation/problem solving framework training package that includes a fair bit on bias/recognition/mitigation and influencing from a position of weakness.

I'm a big fan of the book "Steal Like an Artist"(former NYT bestseller) as well as Stanford Professor Tina Sellig's books(all of them easily digestible and are all brilliant).

Application of a existing concept from one country/culture/company/climate to another is 90%+ of what it's all really about.

Anecdotally, I just witnessed what I believed to be a lot of public conformity to Hillary Clinton and a lot of quiet/conflicted body language.

So so to reiterate, as per Woodsman I'd also like to see more psychological experiment data on outliers/freaks/non conformity.

As well as conformity bias with advent of social media(and narrowly owned mass media).

Conformity risk still exists with anonymity(albeit much lower %).

Let's say it's only 10%(for argument's sake).

Now look at the recent issues raised briefly about Facebook's allegedly biased process for injecting news stories and op-eds into people's newsfeeds.

Facebook is a private company and nothing is really "free". Maybe we are paying with increased risk of being influenced not just to buy stuff, but to vote a certain way.

What impact could highly biased news feed injections, and worse...an algorithm that hammers users with friend's opinions that support Facebook's preferred narrative, have on user conformity?

Maybe that 10% drops to only 5%, or 3%, or 2%.

But what's 2% of mass user votes worth(which could be 0.5-1% of total US voters)?

The numbers and percentages could be way off, but the concept may be valid.

If valid, is that appropriate?

Should that be legal or regulated?

I wonder if Angela Merkel reads iTulip?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...ess-algorithms

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Michael Moore Made a Secret Donald Trump Documentary That Premieres Tonight. Bwahaha!

[Bundi]

Re: Trump to win?

duplicate.

[Bundi]

Re: Trump to win?

If I were to bet at this point, I'd say Hillary probably wins, but only one term. What Republicans need then, is just a standard bearer, someone who was smart enough to see what Trump pulled off, and who is willing to buck the establishment the same way, but with a much more populist platform, and a bit more of a boyscout background. The media will still try to tear whoever it is apart. But it'd be much harder. And the crossover appeal from backing off some of the most regressive economic policies I think would be worth any hit he would take with fundraisers or the party elite. Trump did pretty well with the working class, but he walked away from them on that one. Looking at demographics, he could afford to lose a few more college educated folk if he could snap up a wider base of the working class and be in a stronger position, especially in places like PA and OH. A conservative Republican candidate willing to publicly beat up on business moguls along with the political and media power elite would be quite a thing to see. Plus it would force the Democrats into the box of defending all the elite and status quo, which Trump almost did to Hillary, except for his tax plans, which she whacks him on every time she gets. He already took a softer position than her on foreign policy in some ways, so you can go back and forth on that. But proposing a $4 trillion tax cut for millionaires just isn't gonna tickle good chunks of the working folks...no matter how well it plays with the Heritage Foundation...

We’ll see dcarrigg. Sometimes though I think we all over think this thing and give too much credit or blame to the pols themselves.

In every election cycle, there is messaging that goes too far. Donald Trump seemingly knows no bounds when it comes to messaging. He is outrageous and perhaps like the Dilbert author has said, sees some grand persuasive value in it.

As this campaign has progressed, personally anyway I have taken less not more of an interest in the grand persuasion theory. The reality that I stumble across pretty much daily (hardly a representative cross section of all those voting) is that people don’t need any persuading. Many will vote for Trump and in many of those cases it is even despite Trump being Trump. They want something new. They are sick and tired of the “status quo” and this feeling is the simple manifestation of self-interest.

They don’t much care that he tweeted at 3a.m. or that he frequently comes across as a creepy person. They want something new and it is in their self-interest to pursue the option that in their estimation may most probably provides it. They don’t care what is being talked about on CNN or FOX or Breitbart or by the Dilbert guy. They care that they want something new. They don’t much like Donald Trump as a person, that is until they compare him to option B, the champion of the status quo which brings them logically back to their self-interest, something new. Not personalities. There are only two options here and most voters I come across are plenty grounded enough to see people for what they are. They don’t need an endless barrage of polls and pundits to help them. By the way, this does not make them deplorable, despicable, incorrigible, ignorant, reactionary or irrational. It makes them normal and self-interested.

I think frankly most people pay only a glancing attention to the noise that seems to so consume so many in the political sphere. And this is not because they are “so busy trying to make a living” or “too consumed by corrupt interests, rage, or racism”. It is because they are more fundamentally driven. By what is and has been in front of their noses. And while a lot of them may say it stinks, my sense is even more would simply say, I think it could be better, and then calculate which of the candidates is more likely to deliver better.

As an intellectual debate, “status quo” vs. high risk/high reward Trump is an interesting one. Problem is though I don’t know how much is intellectual and how much is real.

Status quo has a nice and tidy, even convenient box around it. I imagine it has a bold lettered label on the side proclaiming the contents to be “Low Risk”. What is the status quo? Do we understand the mechanisms and effects of it, near term, medium term, and longer term? Is it clear, even to the brightest and most plugged in voters what factors and underlying dynamics exist within the status quo? If it is clear, are voters comfortable that another four years of status quo is low risk? Could it be that timing matters and more status quo is only temporarily low risk then becomes higher risk? Isn’t there a famous economist out there that said the biggest mistake in economics lies in believing that economies are static over time?

Also, I am not so sure the majority of voters deal in the level of intellectual thought necessary to engage in a debate about the theoretical ends of this theoretical spectrum. What is real is what people vote on, and at the level through which they experience, internalize, and understand it.

My assumption is that voters seeing the status quo as low risk, do so not due to their understanding of the inherent risks of the status quo but more that they appreciate the policy set outcomes to date and are for whatever reasons comfortable with it enough to vote for more of it, again and importantly at least when comparing it to the other option. Many others don’t and won’t.

If you are a voter in this election, why would status quo not be seen as equivalent to playing for a tie? Or if building a business, competing to lose only a little money but ensuring no upside. Or if running for office, promising only to do more of what so many voters already find unsatisfactory. OR if voting in an election like this one, akin to not pursuing one’s self interest, as in defying human nature.

The problem, if you care to term it as a problem, is the people, like the system itself, have a hard time with long term investments of their personal capital. They have been subject to the disappointments and disillusionment of the last several years and also to the ornery agency problems of wanting what they want and wanting it now, as opposed to later.

This is in my view the essence of the so called Trump movement. I don’t think it is really a Trump specific movement so much as it is a reflection of human nature. Improve my lot and do it now. This is not a revolution. It is not a sea change. It is not an endorsement or a rejection of one or the other personalities or even degrees of optimal populism displayed in this race. By and large and with some notable unfortunate exceptions on both sides, it is about changing circumstances and rational people voting rationally. I have no idea how much of this is being captured by the various polls, published seemingly by the hour.

The most interesting question to me is whether or not the majority or a sufficient number anyway of American voters feels inclined to vote for something new or not. We’ll see.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Hey Lek, Finally got the chance to watch the Frank video and respond. What he says sounds reasonable enough to me. FWIW, and given the title of the thread, I think Trump could have been something really interesting, and his candidacy almost was. If he had gone true populist--none of the cut the estate tax and top rates for millionaires crap--but true, full blown 'throw the elites out,' even including some more-than-rough-around-the-edges talk about immigration, this might have been a whole different game.

It might not be Trump this time, but Republicans showed they had more backbone to stand up to entrenched interests than Democrats this time around. And there are some fundamental truths...for instance I think it's obviously reasonable to have frank discussions about immigration policy, although, as with most things, one could do it with a bit more compassion and tact than the Donald, even without being fake.

It's still possible that a truly populist candidate will pop out of the Republican Party, flush all the self-serving bankers' economics, and lead a backlash that more independents and even good chunks of the left could get behind.

If I were to bet at this point, I'd say Hillary probably wins, but only one term. What Republicans need then, is just a standard bearer, someone who was smart enough to see what Trump pulled off, and who is willing to buck the establishment the same way, but with a much more populist platform, and a bit more of a boyscout background. The media will still try to tear whoever it is apart. But it'd be much harder. And the crossover appeal from backing off some of the most regressive economic policies I think would be worth any hit he would take with fundraisers or the party elite. Trump did pretty well with the working class, but he walked away from them on that one. Looking at demographics, he could afford to lose a few more college educated folk if he could snap up a wider base of the working class and be in a stronger position, especially in places like PA and OH. A conservative Republican candidate willing to publicly beat up on business moguls along with the political and media power elite would be quite a thing to see. Plus it would force the Democrats into the box of defending all the elite and status quo, which Trump almost did to Hillary, except for his tax plans, which she whacks him on every time she gets. He already took a softer position than her on foreign policy in some ways, so you can go back and forth on that. But proposing a $4 trillion tax cut for millionaires just isn't gonna tickle good chunks of the working folks...no matter how well it plays with the Heritage Foundation...

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Thanks,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irup8L0w4uo

available on youtube...for how long?