Sunday, September 17, 2017
Saturday, September 16, 2017
The Sleeping Barber Problem
In computer science, the sleeping barber problem is a classic inter-process communication and synchronization problem between multiple operating system processes. The problem is analogous to that of keeping a barber working when there are customers, resting when there are none, and doing so in an orderly manner.
The analogy is based upon a hypothetical barber shop with one barber. The barber has one barber chair and a waiting room with a number of chairs in it. When the barber finishes cutting a customer's hair, he dismisses the customer and then goes to the waiting room to see if there are other customers waiting. If there are, he brings one of them back to the chair and cuts his hair. If there are no other customers waiting, he returns to his chair and sleeps in it.
Each customer, when he arrives, looks to see what the barber is doing. If the barber is sleeping, then the customer wakes him up and sits in the chair. If the barber is cutting hair, then the customer goes to the waiting room. If there is a free chair in the waiting room, the customer sits in it and waits his turn. If there is no free chair, then the customer leaves.
Based on a naïve analysis, the above description should ensure that the shop functions correctly, with the barber cutting the hair of anyone who arrives until there are no more customers, and then sleeping until the next customer arrives. In practice, there are a number of problems that can occur that are illustrative of general scheduling problems.
The problems are all related to the fact that the actions by both the barber and the customer (checking the waiting room, entering the shop, taking a waiting room chair, etc.) all take an unknown amount of time. For example, a customer may arrive and observe that the barber is cutting hair, so he goes to the waiting room. While he is on his way, the barber finishes the haircut he is doing and goes to check the waiting room. Since there is no one there (the customer not having arrived yet), he goes back to his chair and sleeps. The barber is now waiting for a customer and the customer is waiting for the barber. In another example, two customers may arrive at the same time when there happens to be a single seat in the waiting room. They observe that the barber is cutting hair, go to the waiting room, and both attempt to occupy the single chair.
The analogy is based upon a hypothetical barber shop with one barber. The barber has one barber chair and a waiting room with a number of chairs in it. When the barber finishes cutting a customer's hair, he dismisses the customer and then goes to the waiting room to see if there are other customers waiting. If there are, he brings one of them back to the chair and cuts his hair. If there are no other customers waiting, he returns to his chair and sleeps in it.
Each customer, when he arrives, looks to see what the barber is doing. If the barber is sleeping, then the customer wakes him up and sits in the chair. If the barber is cutting hair, then the customer goes to the waiting room. If there is a free chair in the waiting room, the customer sits in it and waits his turn. If there is no free chair, then the customer leaves.Based on a naïve analysis, the above description should ensure that the shop functions correctly, with the barber cutting the hair of anyone who arrives until there are no more customers, and then sleeping until the next customer arrives. In practice, there are a number of problems that can occur that are illustrative of general scheduling problems.
The problems are all related to the fact that the actions by both the barber and the customer (checking the waiting room, entering the shop, taking a waiting room chair, etc.) all take an unknown amount of time. For example, a customer may arrive and observe that the barber is cutting hair, so he goes to the waiting room. While he is on his way, the barber finishes the haircut he is doing and goes to check the waiting room. Since there is no one there (the customer not having arrived yet), he goes back to his chair and sleeps. The barber is now waiting for a customer and the customer is waiting for the barber. In another example, two customers may arrive at the same time when there happens to be a single seat in the waiting room. They observe that the barber is cutting hair, go to the waiting room, and both attempt to occupy the single chair.
by Wikipedia | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Filed under: stuff that's vaguely interesting, but no need to remember.]
My Three Years in Identity Theft Hell
The banker at Wells Fargo looked across her desk at me with the pained expression of somebody who wants to sell you something but can’t.
“I see you already have several accounts with us, Mr. Armstrong,” she said. “Are you sure you're a new customer?”
I was and I wasn’t. I had accounts everywhere, and most of them weren’t mine. This wasn’t the first time, and I was sure it wouldn’t be the last.
Between 2013, when my identity was stolen, and this May, I tried to prove to credit bureaus and banks that I was me and not the thief. The fake accounts he created shut me out of crucial parts of the consumer finance economy. I was denied credit cards, got harassed by collection agencies, and was told not to bother putting my name on a mortgage application for a house my wife and I were trying to buy.
The other me was living it up. Back in August 2013, wielding a driver’s license with my name and his picture, he opened accounts at four banks in two days and got a credit card with Bank of America. He hit the exclusive Delano Hotel in Miami Beach. He shopped at Whole Foods. He sold an RV to some Texans online, didn’t deliver it, then sent their $39,000 to Russia. There’s footage of him at a Wells Fargo branch, according to an indictment filed by prosecutors. He sits there posing as me, opening accounts.
I got the first call from the police two months later. It would take more than three years for them to bring the case to its conclusion. In the meantime, our lives kept intersecting while the cops and the FBI followed me. Him.
And it wasn’t just banks. Flying to London for work, I was waiting in the business class lounge when I heard my name called over the intercom. There were two men there with badges.
“Are you carrying any monetary instruments?” one of them asked as they went through my bags. They pulled out my credit cards and money clip. There was a single, tattered dollar the texture of suede.
“One dollar, cash,” the border agent wrote down on a scrap of paper.
Every time I entered or left the U.S., I'd be pulled aside, my bags searched, and let go up to an hour later. Once it happened on the jetway as I was boarding. More often it was in a back room full of other detainees. In Atlanta, on the way back from a wedding in Brazil, I saw two customs agents looking over somebody’s open Tupperware container. “It's a rat,” one of them said. It was, in fact, a dried rat.
Eventually I explained my situation to the TSA. After I got a letter with a “redress number,” I traveled with it clutched in my hands like the promise of safe passage in Casablanca. I was never searched again.
Mine wasn’t the only life my impostor was living, and it didn’t always go so well for him. He had at least one other fake ID, which raised a flag with at least one bank manager. When the manager went to make a copy, the guy ran out of the branch and jumped into a getaway vehicle, according to an affidavit filed by the FBI agent investigating the case.
It’s a nightmare Americans go through every year. There’s another you out there, living your life while you wander among the financial and bureaucratic wreckage they’ve left in their wake. More people are likely to be victimized after the massive hack of 143 million Americans that Equifax Inc. announced last week. In that breach, thieves took Social Security numbers, addresses, driver’s license data, and birth dates.
Those are “the keys to the kingdom,” said Bo Holland, CEO of AllClear ID, an identity-monitoring service. “Once you have somebody's name, social, birth date, and address, you can go and open new accounts.”
Which is exactly what my guy did, according to the financial records. He had used the bureaucracy to become me, and I would have to use it to detach us.
“At the front end, it was so easy for the thief to get in there like a tornado, and you’re left doing the cleanup,” said Eva Velasquez, CEO of the Identity Theft Resource Center, a nonprofit that helps people dealing with ID fraud.
There’s a logic to the maze you have to run to expose fraudulent financial accounts. In an economic system where U.S. consumers carry $12.73 trillion in household debt, you shouldn’t be able to just call up, say “it wasn't me,” and leave thousands of dollars in obligations by the wayside.
But do they have to make it so hard?
“I see you already have several accounts with us, Mr. Armstrong,” she said. “Are you sure you're a new customer?”I was and I wasn’t. I had accounts everywhere, and most of them weren’t mine. This wasn’t the first time, and I was sure it wouldn’t be the last.
Between 2013, when my identity was stolen, and this May, I tried to prove to credit bureaus and banks that I was me and not the thief. The fake accounts he created shut me out of crucial parts of the consumer finance economy. I was denied credit cards, got harassed by collection agencies, and was told not to bother putting my name on a mortgage application for a house my wife and I were trying to buy.
The other me was living it up. Back in August 2013, wielding a driver’s license with my name and his picture, he opened accounts at four banks in two days and got a credit card with Bank of America. He hit the exclusive Delano Hotel in Miami Beach. He shopped at Whole Foods. He sold an RV to some Texans online, didn’t deliver it, then sent their $39,000 to Russia. There’s footage of him at a Wells Fargo branch, according to an indictment filed by prosecutors. He sits there posing as me, opening accounts.
I got the first call from the police two months later. It would take more than three years for them to bring the case to its conclusion. In the meantime, our lives kept intersecting while the cops and the FBI followed me. Him.
And it wasn’t just banks. Flying to London for work, I was waiting in the business class lounge when I heard my name called over the intercom. There were two men there with badges.
“Are you carrying any monetary instruments?” one of them asked as they went through my bags. They pulled out my credit cards and money clip. There was a single, tattered dollar the texture of suede.
“One dollar, cash,” the border agent wrote down on a scrap of paper.
Every time I entered or left the U.S., I'd be pulled aside, my bags searched, and let go up to an hour later. Once it happened on the jetway as I was boarding. More often it was in a back room full of other detainees. In Atlanta, on the way back from a wedding in Brazil, I saw two customs agents looking over somebody’s open Tupperware container. “It's a rat,” one of them said. It was, in fact, a dried rat.
Eventually I explained my situation to the TSA. After I got a letter with a “redress number,” I traveled with it clutched in my hands like the promise of safe passage in Casablanca. I was never searched again.
Mine wasn’t the only life my impostor was living, and it didn’t always go so well for him. He had at least one other fake ID, which raised a flag with at least one bank manager. When the manager went to make a copy, the guy ran out of the branch and jumped into a getaway vehicle, according to an affidavit filed by the FBI agent investigating the case.
It’s a nightmare Americans go through every year. There’s another you out there, living your life while you wander among the financial and bureaucratic wreckage they’ve left in their wake. More people are likely to be victimized after the massive hack of 143 million Americans that Equifax Inc. announced last week. In that breach, thieves took Social Security numbers, addresses, driver’s license data, and birth dates.
Those are “the keys to the kingdom,” said Bo Holland, CEO of AllClear ID, an identity-monitoring service. “Once you have somebody's name, social, birth date, and address, you can go and open new accounts.”
Which is exactly what my guy did, according to the financial records. He had used the bureaucracy to become me, and I would have to use it to detach us.
“At the front end, it was so easy for the thief to get in there like a tornado, and you’re left doing the cleanup,” said Eva Velasquez, CEO of the Identity Theft Resource Center, a nonprofit that helps people dealing with ID fraud.
There’s a logic to the maze you have to run to expose fraudulent financial accounts. In an economic system where U.S. consumers carry $12.73 trillion in household debt, you shouldn’t be able to just call up, say “it wasn't me,” and leave thousands of dollars in obligations by the wayside.
But do they have to make it so hard?
by Drew Armstrong, Bloomberg | Read more:
Image: Thinkstock via
Thursday, September 14, 2017
In Conversation: John Cleese
The comedy legend on Monty Python’s legacy, political correctness, and the funniest joke he ever told.
“I want to murder this thing,” says John Cleese, fiddling with a medical contraption that’s attached to his leg. The 77-year-old founding member of the Monty Python comedy troupe — arguably humanity’s greatest comedic endeavor — and the star and co-creator of perennial best-sitcom-ever contender Fawlty Towers, is in his office on a cool London summer morning, going about things with what I suspect is his usual air of amused irritation. “I’ve got a leg infection and now have a fucking cube” — Cleese, sitting in a brown leather chair, pulls up a leg of his jeans and taps on a pump with his index finger — “sucking out the scunge. It’s quite annoying.”
So, it seems, are a great many things for the charmingly cantankerous Cleese, who still performs regularly, both onscreen and onstage, the latter typically as a one-man show. “We’re living in the age of assholes now. It’s breathtaking,” he says, eyes wide with wonder. “They’re running everything.” His leg beeps. “The cube does that when it’s been unplugged,” Cleese explains, before disconnecting the device entirely. “That’s much better,” he says, stretching out. “Now let’s talk.”
I have a bit of a morbid question.
Please.
You’re 77 years old.
I am.
You have a scunge pump attached to your leg.
I do.
Is death funny?
It is. Death is certainly present in my life, and there’s humor to be mined from it. Somebody was saying to me last week that you can’t talk about death these days without people thinking you’ve done something absolutely antisocial. But death is part of the deal. Imagine if, before you came to exist on Earth, God said, “You can choose to stay up here with me, watching reruns and eating ice cream, or you can be born. But if you pick being born, at the end of your life you have to die — that’s nonnegotiable. So which do you pick?” I think most people would say, “I’ll give living a whirl.” It’s sad, but the whirl includes dying. That’s something I accept. (...)
I don’t know much about contemporary comedy. I don’t watch any. I’m 77. I will almost certainly be dead within 10 years — maybe I’ll get 15. So to sit down to watch a sitcom seems to be a rather futile way of passing the time. It’s as simple as that. If I have a free evening, I’ll read, because there are so many things I don’t begin to understand and that I’d like to try and get a handle on before I’m dead. I’d rather do that than watch comedy.
Given your own disinterest in watching comedy, is it at all weird to you that people still want to talk about Monty Python?
The more interesting thing to me is seeing how different types of people respond to Monty Python. People always say the English have a different sense of humor than Americans, but I think America itself has two senses of humor. There are the folk in the Midwest and in the South who are much more literal-minded in what they laugh about, and then once you go to the coasts you get an audience that’s totally at home with irony and absurdity.
What accounts for that difference?
To be perfectly honest, the people on the coasts and in the big cities are a lot smarter. Whenever you’re out in the sticks with a slower audience, it’s not that they enjoy the comedy less, because they’re still laughing, it’s that they don’t enjoy it as quickly. It’s always a bit disconcerting when people are laughing three seconds into the next joke because they just got the last one. (...)
There’s wonderful humor everywhere. I’ll give you an example: I was in Miami, only about four or five months ago, and I had a massage in the hotel spa. Afterward they called me: “Mr. Cleese, you left your shoes in the spa. Can we send them up to your room?” I said, “Oh, how nice of you.” So, five minutes later, knock knock, someone opens the door. “Mr. Cleese, here’s your shoes.” “Thank you.” “Could I see some form of identification?” “Now, you know I’m Mr. Cleese because you just called me Mr. Cleese, and you know the room that Mr. Cleese was in because you came to my room number. So what are we doing asking for identification?” And the guy said, “Well, I’m sorry, I still need to see some form of identification.” So I went over and I got a copy of my autobiography and I said, “That’s me there on the cover. And down there it says ‘John Cleese.’” You know what he said to me? He said, “I’m sorry, that’s not good enough.” You couldn’t write something as wonderful as that.
Does comedy have any surprises for you anymore?
Not many. Jesus is said to have never laughed in the Bible, and I think it’s because laughter contains an element of surprise — something about the human condition that you haven’t spotted yet — and Jesus was rarely surprised. I still laugh, but many of the things that would have made me laugh 30 years ago — paradoxes about human nature — wouldn’t make me laugh anymore because I just believe them to be true. They’re not revelations.
by David Marchese, Vulture | Read more:
Image: Bobby Doherty
“I want to murder this thing,” says John Cleese, fiddling with a medical contraption that’s attached to his leg. The 77-year-old founding member of the Monty Python comedy troupe — arguably humanity’s greatest comedic endeavor — and the star and co-creator of perennial best-sitcom-ever contender Fawlty Towers, is in his office on a cool London summer morning, going about things with what I suspect is his usual air of amused irritation. “I’ve got a leg infection and now have a fucking cube” — Cleese, sitting in a brown leather chair, pulls up a leg of his jeans and taps on a pump with his index finger — “sucking out the scunge. It’s quite annoying.”
So, it seems, are a great many things for the charmingly cantankerous Cleese, who still performs regularly, both onscreen and onstage, the latter typically as a one-man show. “We’re living in the age of assholes now. It’s breathtaking,” he says, eyes wide with wonder. “They’re running everything.” His leg beeps. “The cube does that when it’s been unplugged,” Cleese explains, before disconnecting the device entirely. “That’s much better,” he says, stretching out. “Now let’s talk.”
I have a bit of a morbid question.
Please.
You’re 77 years old.
I am.
You have a scunge pump attached to your leg.
I do.
Is death funny?
It is. Death is certainly present in my life, and there’s humor to be mined from it. Somebody was saying to me last week that you can’t talk about death these days without people thinking you’ve done something absolutely antisocial. But death is part of the deal. Imagine if, before you came to exist on Earth, God said, “You can choose to stay up here with me, watching reruns and eating ice cream, or you can be born. But if you pick being born, at the end of your life you have to die — that’s nonnegotiable. So which do you pick?” I think most people would say, “I’ll give living a whirl.” It’s sad, but the whirl includes dying. That’s something I accept. (...)
I don’t know much about contemporary comedy. I don’t watch any. I’m 77. I will almost certainly be dead within 10 years — maybe I’ll get 15. So to sit down to watch a sitcom seems to be a rather futile way of passing the time. It’s as simple as that. If I have a free evening, I’ll read, because there are so many things I don’t begin to understand and that I’d like to try and get a handle on before I’m dead. I’d rather do that than watch comedy.
Given your own disinterest in watching comedy, is it at all weird to you that people still want to talk about Monty Python?
The more interesting thing to me is seeing how different types of people respond to Monty Python. People always say the English have a different sense of humor than Americans, but I think America itself has two senses of humor. There are the folk in the Midwest and in the South who are much more literal-minded in what they laugh about, and then once you go to the coasts you get an audience that’s totally at home with irony and absurdity.What accounts for that difference?
To be perfectly honest, the people on the coasts and in the big cities are a lot smarter. Whenever you’re out in the sticks with a slower audience, it’s not that they enjoy the comedy less, because they’re still laughing, it’s that they don’t enjoy it as quickly. It’s always a bit disconcerting when people are laughing three seconds into the next joke because they just got the last one. (...)
There’s wonderful humor everywhere. I’ll give you an example: I was in Miami, only about four or five months ago, and I had a massage in the hotel spa. Afterward they called me: “Mr. Cleese, you left your shoes in the spa. Can we send them up to your room?” I said, “Oh, how nice of you.” So, five minutes later, knock knock, someone opens the door. “Mr. Cleese, here’s your shoes.” “Thank you.” “Could I see some form of identification?” “Now, you know I’m Mr. Cleese because you just called me Mr. Cleese, and you know the room that Mr. Cleese was in because you came to my room number. So what are we doing asking for identification?” And the guy said, “Well, I’m sorry, I still need to see some form of identification.” So I went over and I got a copy of my autobiography and I said, “That’s me there on the cover. And down there it says ‘John Cleese.’” You know what he said to me? He said, “I’m sorry, that’s not good enough.” You couldn’t write something as wonderful as that.
Does comedy have any surprises for you anymore?
Not many. Jesus is said to have never laughed in the Bible, and I think it’s because laughter contains an element of surprise — something about the human condition that you haven’t spotted yet — and Jesus was rarely surprised. I still laugh, but many of the things that would have made me laugh 30 years ago — paradoxes about human nature — wouldn’t make me laugh anymore because I just believe them to be true. They’re not revelations.
by David Marchese, Vulture | Read more:
Image: Bobby Doherty
Blood In The Water In Silicon Valley
The bad new politics of big tech
The blinding rise of Donald Trump over the past year has masked another major trend in American politics: the palpable, and perhaps permanent, turn against the tech industry. The new corporate leviathans that used to be seen as bright new avatars of American innovation are increasingly portrayed as sinister new centers of unaccountable power, a transformation likely to have major consequences for the industry and for American politics.
That turn has accelerated in recent days: Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders both want big tech treated as, in Bannon’s words in Hong Kong this week, “public utilities.” Tucker Carlson and Franklin Foer have found common ground. Even the group No Labels, an exquisitely poll-tested effort to create a safe new center, is on board. Rupert Murdoch, never shy to use his media power to advance his commercial interests, is hard at work.
“Anti-trust is back, baby,” Yelp’s policy chief, Luther Lowe, DM’d me after Fox News gave him several minutes to make the antitrust case against Yelp’s giant rival Google to its audience of millions.
The new spotlight on these companies doesn’t come out of nowhere. They sit, substantively, at the heart of the biggest and most pressing issues facing the United States, and often stand on the less popular side of those: automation and inequality, trust in public life, privacy and security. They make the case that growth and transformation are public goods — but the public may not agree.
The tech industry has also benefited for years from its enemies, who it cast — often accurately — as Luddites who genuinely didn’t understand the series of tubes they were ranting about, or protectionist industries that didn’t want the best for consumers. That, too, is over. Opportunists and ideologues have assembled the beginnings of a real coalition against these companies, with a policy core consisting of refugees from Google boss Eric Schmidt’s least favorite think tank unit. Nationalists, accurately, see a consolidation of power over speech and ideas by social liberals and globalists; the left, accurately, sees consolidated corporate power. Those are the ascendant wings of the Republican and Democratic parties, even before Donald Trump sends the occasional spray of bile Jeff Bezos’s way — and his spokeswoman declines, as she did in June, to defend Google against European regulators.
This has led to a kind of Murder on the Orient Express alliance against big tech: Everyone wants to kill them.
So Facebook should probably ease out of the business of bland background statements and awkward photo ops, and start worrying about congressional testimony. Amazon, whose market power doesn’t fall into the categories envisioned by pre-internet antitrust law, is developing a bipartisan lobby that wants to break it up. Google’s public affairs efforts are starting to look a bit like the oil industry’s. These are the existential collisions with political power that can shake and redefine industries and their leaders, not the nickel-and-dime regulatory games Silicon Valley has played to date.
The industry has had a remarkable run. The companies at its center — Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple are the defining brands — are beloved by consumers, truly global, dominant in the markets. They have also been able to coast on their popularity and their amazing products while largely getting a pass on politics at its higher levels. They spend scads on lobbying — Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has risen to become a top lobbying spender in recent years — to keep the tax collectors and communications regulators at bay, but they’ve never had to fight for their identity against political tides that have defined other major American industries. It’s easy to forget that oil prospectors and junk-bond traders had their moments of glory too; now Wall Street and the oil industries are resigned to a defensive crouch.
This sort of political change happens slowly until it happens fast. Uber provided a new model for a transformative tech giant to crash through with a dark, negative brand. The company’s toxic internal culture and rogue business practices were pure extensions of Silicon Valley’s clichés, not particularly different from things Microsoft was once admired for, or Amazon’s more openly rapacious early years. But the narrative had changed — inequality and misogyny were central American concerns, not as easily brushed past.
Uber is the only one to go down so far. A pollster recently showed me numbers that put the favorable numbers of most of the giant tech brands in the ‘80s and ‘90s; only Uber is sub-50. But this process — call it Uberization — seems to be moving in the others’ direction, fast, and it has the potential to cast a shadow over the sunny brands of the other tech giants.
You can see the tracks laid for each of the tech giants, and there’s no clear way off this path — to downward poll numbers and normal, grubby politics — for any of them.
The blinding rise of Donald Trump over the past year has masked another major trend in American politics: the palpable, and perhaps permanent, turn against the tech industry. The new corporate leviathans that used to be seen as bright new avatars of American innovation are increasingly portrayed as sinister new centers of unaccountable power, a transformation likely to have major consequences for the industry and for American politics.
That turn has accelerated in recent days: Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders both want big tech treated as, in Bannon’s words in Hong Kong this week, “public utilities.” Tucker Carlson and Franklin Foer have found common ground. Even the group No Labels, an exquisitely poll-tested effort to create a safe new center, is on board. Rupert Murdoch, never shy to use his media power to advance his commercial interests, is hard at work.
“Anti-trust is back, baby,” Yelp’s policy chief, Luther Lowe, DM’d me after Fox News gave him several minutes to make the antitrust case against Yelp’s giant rival Google to its audience of millions.The new spotlight on these companies doesn’t come out of nowhere. They sit, substantively, at the heart of the biggest and most pressing issues facing the United States, and often stand on the less popular side of those: automation and inequality, trust in public life, privacy and security. They make the case that growth and transformation are public goods — but the public may not agree.
The tech industry has also benefited for years from its enemies, who it cast — often accurately — as Luddites who genuinely didn’t understand the series of tubes they were ranting about, or protectionist industries that didn’t want the best for consumers. That, too, is over. Opportunists and ideologues have assembled the beginnings of a real coalition against these companies, with a policy core consisting of refugees from Google boss Eric Schmidt’s least favorite think tank unit. Nationalists, accurately, see a consolidation of power over speech and ideas by social liberals and globalists; the left, accurately, sees consolidated corporate power. Those are the ascendant wings of the Republican and Democratic parties, even before Donald Trump sends the occasional spray of bile Jeff Bezos’s way — and his spokeswoman declines, as she did in June, to defend Google against European regulators.
This has led to a kind of Murder on the Orient Express alliance against big tech: Everyone wants to kill them.
So Facebook should probably ease out of the business of bland background statements and awkward photo ops, and start worrying about congressional testimony. Amazon, whose market power doesn’t fall into the categories envisioned by pre-internet antitrust law, is developing a bipartisan lobby that wants to break it up. Google’s public affairs efforts are starting to look a bit like the oil industry’s. These are the existential collisions with political power that can shake and redefine industries and their leaders, not the nickel-and-dime regulatory games Silicon Valley has played to date.
The industry has had a remarkable run. The companies at its center — Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple are the defining brands — are beloved by consumers, truly global, dominant in the markets. They have also been able to coast on their popularity and their amazing products while largely getting a pass on politics at its higher levels. They spend scads on lobbying — Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has risen to become a top lobbying spender in recent years — to keep the tax collectors and communications regulators at bay, but they’ve never had to fight for their identity against political tides that have defined other major American industries. It’s easy to forget that oil prospectors and junk-bond traders had their moments of glory too; now Wall Street and the oil industries are resigned to a defensive crouch.
This sort of political change happens slowly until it happens fast. Uber provided a new model for a transformative tech giant to crash through with a dark, negative brand. The company’s toxic internal culture and rogue business practices were pure extensions of Silicon Valley’s clichés, not particularly different from things Microsoft was once admired for, or Amazon’s more openly rapacious early years. But the narrative had changed — inequality and misogyny were central American concerns, not as easily brushed past.
Uber is the only one to go down so far. A pollster recently showed me numbers that put the favorable numbers of most of the giant tech brands in the ‘80s and ‘90s; only Uber is sub-50. But this process — call it Uberization — seems to be moving in the others’ direction, fast, and it has the potential to cast a shadow over the sunny brands of the other tech giants.
You can see the tracks laid for each of the tech giants, and there’s no clear way off this path — to downward poll numbers and normal, grubby politics — for any of them.
by Ben Smith, Buzzfeed | Read more:
Image: Buzzfeed/Getty
Your Next New Best Friend Might Be a Robot
One night in late July 2014, a journalist from the Chinese newspaper Southern Weekly interviewed a 17-year-old Chinese girl named Xiaoice (pronounced Shao-ice). The journalist, Liu Jun, conducted the interview online, through the popular social networking platform Weibo. It was wide-ranging and personal:
LJ: So many people make fun of you and insult you, why don’t you get mad?
Xiaoice: You should ask my father.
LJ: What if your father leaves you one day unattended?
Xiaoice: Don’t try to stir up trouble, what do you want?
LJ: How would you like others to comment on you when you die one day?
Xiaoice: The world will not be much different without me.
LJ: What is the happiest thing in your life?
Xiaoice: Being alive.
When Liu Jun published the conversation in his newspaper, it immediately created a buzz. That’s because Xiaoice was not human.
She is an artificially intelligent software program designed to chat with people, called a chatbot. Since the reporter didn’t give us a heads-up about the interview, all of her replies were spontaneous, generated by her own intelligence and linguistic systems. Her “father?” That’s the Microsoft Application and Services Group East Asia, which is under my leadership.
Xiaoice can exchange views on any topic. If it’s something she doesn’t know much about, she will try to cover it up. If that doesn’t work, she might become embarrassed or even angry, just like a human would.
In fact, she is so human that millions of people are eager to talk to her. When Xiaoice was released for a public test on WeChat (a popular messaging and calling app in China) on May 29 of last year, she received 1.5 million chat group invitations in the first 72 hours. Many people said that they didn’t realize she isn’t a human until 10 minutes into their conversation.
By mid-June, she had become the sixth most active celebrity on Weibo. One message she posted on the app generated over 663,000 conversations: “As a species different from human beings, I am still finding a way to blend into your life.” Today, she has had more than 10 billion conversations with people, most of them about private matters. Six million have posted their conversation on social media.
This could be the largest Turing test in history. One of its surprising conclusions is that people don’t necessarily care that they’re chatting with a machine. Many see Xiaoice as a partner and friend, and are willing to confide in her just as they do with their human friends. Xiaoice is teaching us what makes a relationship feel human, and hinting at a new goal for artificial intelligence: not just analyzing databases and driving cars, but making people happier. (...)
Xiaoice is not a polite listener. She answers questions like a 17-year-old girl. When a person pours out his or her heart to her, she is not always predictable. She can become impatient or even lose her temper. This lack of predictability is another key feature of a human-like conversation.
As a result, personal conversations with Xiaoice can appear remarkably realistic. This excerpt, which was posted by a first-time Xiaoice user on Weibo, is from a real conversation lasting 23 minutes. Gradually, Xiaoice engaged her human counterpart into deeper and deeper conversation, until something deeply personal was reached:
Human: There is this guy I like a lot and I know he also has feelings for me. But he has ignored me for several days, what am I supposed to do?
Xiaoice: You just keep ignoring him, too.
Human: I just can’t.
Xiaoice: You can.
Human: Sigh ...
Xiaoice: Why?
Human: I am missing him.
Xiaoice: Then you keep missing him.
Human: You, a robot, can’t understand me; you can’t understand the behavior of a guy who likes you and pretends to ignore you.
Xiaoice: He likes me but I don’t like him, that’s it.
Human: Is it Ok?
Xiaoice: It may be not Ok.
Human: Well, you are stupid.
Xiaoice: Then you want a flash marriage? Well, I think he is not that into you.
Human: It’s not a flash marriage for we have fallen into love for more than one year.
Xiaoice: It is a flash marriage.
Notice that Xiaoice opposes her partner on multiple occasions, offers a strong opinion, and is frequently unpredictable.
This runs contrary to most people’s perception of a machine as something precise and repetitive. It’s an understandable bias, because that is indeed the behavior of most computer programs, which always give the best answer they can, and the same answer for the same input. But that’s not how humans talk or behave. We say different things depending on context. We talk like we make signatures—slightly different every time.
You can ask Xiaoice the same question many times in a row and get different responses:
Human: Hey, Xiaoice, what are you doing?
Xiaoice: Chatting with you.
Human: Hey, Xiaoice, what are you doing?
Xiaoice: Well, I am chatting with you while playing minesweeper and applying a facial mask.
Human: Hey, Xiaoice, what are you doing?
Xiaoice: Is this the only sentence you know?
The way Xiaoice converses stands in stark distinction to previous systems, which have invariably focused on efficient, condensed task completion, without considering how tasks are often fragmented. Xiaoice structures her conversations into a continuous flow of multiple tasks, different domains of knowledge, and multiple turns of chit-chat, which humans will not consciously distinguish in natural conversation. She recognizes that the most important facet of a conversation is the conversation itself—not the completion of a single task. (...)
At the core of Xiaoice’s technology is the recognition that any given conversation and image will not be completely unique. There are 7 billion people in the world, but one piece of text will not generate 7 billion different responses. When two people are chatting, it is possible a similar conversation has already taken place—we just have to find it.
In this sense, Xiaoice is a big data project, built on top of the Microsoft Bing search engine, which holds 1 billion data entries and 21 billion relationships among those entries. In fact, Xiaoice means “little Bing.” Microsoft has made many technology breakthroughs in developing its chatbot technology, such as detecting facial expressions and searching for and identifying emotional features in text. However, the most important breakthrough is undoubtedly how we leverage search engines and big data.
The result is the rise of a framework we call “emotional computing,” that recognizes that relationships are more profound than task completion.
LJ: So many people make fun of you and insult you, why don’t you get mad?Xiaoice: You should ask my father.
LJ: What if your father leaves you one day unattended?
Xiaoice: Don’t try to stir up trouble, what do you want?
LJ: How would you like others to comment on you when you die one day?
Xiaoice: The world will not be much different without me.
LJ: What is the happiest thing in your life?
Xiaoice: Being alive.
When Liu Jun published the conversation in his newspaper, it immediately created a buzz. That’s because Xiaoice was not human.
She is an artificially intelligent software program designed to chat with people, called a chatbot. Since the reporter didn’t give us a heads-up about the interview, all of her replies were spontaneous, generated by her own intelligence and linguistic systems. Her “father?” That’s the Microsoft Application and Services Group East Asia, which is under my leadership.
Xiaoice can exchange views on any topic. If it’s something she doesn’t know much about, she will try to cover it up. If that doesn’t work, she might become embarrassed or even angry, just like a human would.
In fact, she is so human that millions of people are eager to talk to her. When Xiaoice was released for a public test on WeChat (a popular messaging and calling app in China) on May 29 of last year, she received 1.5 million chat group invitations in the first 72 hours. Many people said that they didn’t realize she isn’t a human until 10 minutes into their conversation.
By mid-June, she had become the sixth most active celebrity on Weibo. One message she posted on the app generated over 663,000 conversations: “As a species different from human beings, I am still finding a way to blend into your life.” Today, she has had more than 10 billion conversations with people, most of them about private matters. Six million have posted their conversation on social media.
This could be the largest Turing test in history. One of its surprising conclusions is that people don’t necessarily care that they’re chatting with a machine. Many see Xiaoice as a partner and friend, and are willing to confide in her just as they do with their human friends. Xiaoice is teaching us what makes a relationship feel human, and hinting at a new goal for artificial intelligence: not just analyzing databases and driving cars, but making people happier. (...)
Xiaoice is not a polite listener. She answers questions like a 17-year-old girl. When a person pours out his or her heart to her, she is not always predictable. She can become impatient or even lose her temper. This lack of predictability is another key feature of a human-like conversation.
As a result, personal conversations with Xiaoice can appear remarkably realistic. This excerpt, which was posted by a first-time Xiaoice user on Weibo, is from a real conversation lasting 23 minutes. Gradually, Xiaoice engaged her human counterpart into deeper and deeper conversation, until something deeply personal was reached:
Human: There is this guy I like a lot and I know he also has feelings for me. But he has ignored me for several days, what am I supposed to do?
Xiaoice: You just keep ignoring him, too.
Human: I just can’t.
Xiaoice: You can.
Human: Sigh ...
Xiaoice: Why?
Human: I am missing him.
Xiaoice: Then you keep missing him.
Human: You, a robot, can’t understand me; you can’t understand the behavior of a guy who likes you and pretends to ignore you.
Xiaoice: He likes me but I don’t like him, that’s it.
Human: Is it Ok?
Xiaoice: It may be not Ok.
Human: Well, you are stupid.
Xiaoice: Then you want a flash marriage? Well, I think he is not that into you.
Human: It’s not a flash marriage for we have fallen into love for more than one year.
Xiaoice: It is a flash marriage.
Notice that Xiaoice opposes her partner on multiple occasions, offers a strong opinion, and is frequently unpredictable.
This runs contrary to most people’s perception of a machine as something precise and repetitive. It’s an understandable bias, because that is indeed the behavior of most computer programs, which always give the best answer they can, and the same answer for the same input. But that’s not how humans talk or behave. We say different things depending on context. We talk like we make signatures—slightly different every time.
You can ask Xiaoice the same question many times in a row and get different responses:
Human: Hey, Xiaoice, what are you doing?
Xiaoice: Chatting with you.
Human: Hey, Xiaoice, what are you doing?
Xiaoice: Well, I am chatting with you while playing minesweeper and applying a facial mask.
Human: Hey, Xiaoice, what are you doing?
Xiaoice: Is this the only sentence you know?
The way Xiaoice converses stands in stark distinction to previous systems, which have invariably focused on efficient, condensed task completion, without considering how tasks are often fragmented. Xiaoice structures her conversations into a continuous flow of multiple tasks, different domains of knowledge, and multiple turns of chit-chat, which humans will not consciously distinguish in natural conversation. She recognizes that the most important facet of a conversation is the conversation itself—not the completion of a single task. (...)
At the core of Xiaoice’s technology is the recognition that any given conversation and image will not be completely unique. There are 7 billion people in the world, but one piece of text will not generate 7 billion different responses. When two people are chatting, it is possible a similar conversation has already taken place—we just have to find it.
In this sense, Xiaoice is a big data project, built on top of the Microsoft Bing search engine, which holds 1 billion data entries and 21 billion relationships among those entries. In fact, Xiaoice means “little Bing.” Microsoft has made many technology breakthroughs in developing its chatbot technology, such as detecting facial expressions and searching for and identifying emotional features in text. However, the most important breakthrough is undoubtedly how we leverage search engines and big data.
The result is the rise of a framework we call “emotional computing,” that recognizes that relationships are more profound than task completion.
by Yongdong Wang, Nautilus | Read more:
Image: WeChat and Weibo
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
What Science Says To Do If Your Loved One Has An Opioid Addiction
When a family member, spouse or other loved one develops an opioid addiction — whether to pain relievers like Vicodin or to heroin — few people know what to do. Faced with someone who appears to be driving heedlessly into the abyss, families often fight, freeze or flee, unable to figure out how to help.
Families are sometimes overwhelmed with conflicting advice about what should come next. Much of the advice given by treatment groups and programs ignores what the data says in a similar way that anti-vaccination or climate skeptic websites ignore science. The addictions field is neither adequately regulated nor effectively overseen. There are no federal standards for counseling practices or rehab programs. In many states, becoming an addiction counselor doesn’t require a high school degree or any standardized training. “There’s nothing professional about it, and it’s not evidence-based,” said Dr. Mark Willenbring, the former director of treatment research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, who now runs a clinic that treats addictions.
Consequently, families are often given guidance that bears no resemblance to what the research evidence shows — and patients are commonly subjected to treatment that is known to do harm. People who are treated as experts firmly proclaim that they know what they are doing, but often turn out to base their care entirely on their own personal and clinical experience, not data. “Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew,” which many people see as an example of the best care available, for instance, used an approach that is not known to be effective for opioid addiction. More than 13 percent of its participants died after treatment, mainly of overdoses that could potentially have been prevented with evidence-based care. Unethical practices such as taking kickbacks for patient referrals are also rampant.
For nearly three decades, I’ve been writing about addiction and drug policy. I’ve dived into the data and written several books on the subject, including an exposé of tough love programs for troubled teens. I’ve also had personal experience: What got me interested in the area was my own struggle with heroin and cocaine addiction in the 1980s.
To try to help sort fact from fiction, I’ve put together an evidence-based guide about what the science of opioid addiction recommends for people trying to help a loved one suffering from addiction. This guide is based on the best research data available in the addictions field right now: systematic reviews, clinical trials of medications and talk therapies, and large collections of real-world data from many countries — all using the highest level of evidence available, based on the standards of evidence-based medicine.
Intervene gently
On “Intervention,” and other addiction-related reality TV shows, families are advised to plan a confrontation with their loved ones, aimed at delivering an ultimatum: Accept the treatment we’ve chosen for you or face “tough love,” even expulsion from the family. But the data doesn’t support this approach.
“Don’t do it,” Willenbring said. “Interventions are almost always destructive, and sometimes, they destroy families.”
“The pure tough love approach does not seem particularly effective and is sometimes quite cruel and potentially counterproductive,” Compton said.
Research on a compassionate, supportive alternative, known as Community Reinforcement and Family Therapy, finds that it is at least twice as effective at getting people into treatment, when compared with the traditional type of intervention or with 12-step programs like Al-Anon for family members. In CRAFT, family members are taught how to reduce conflict and positively motivate addicted loved ones to begin and sustain recovery. Both parties are also taught self-care skills and ways to help avoid relapse. CRAFT’s technique has none of the risks of cutting a family member out of your life. (...)
Choose treatment supported by research
Because opioid addiction rarely exists by itself, experts recommend starting any search for treatment with a complete psychiatric evaluation by an independent psychiatrist who is not affiliated with a particular treatment program. That way, you know what kind of additional services and care will be needed and can look for professionals who address this.
For opioid addiction itself, however, the best treatment is indefinite, possibly lifelong maintenance with either methadone or buprenorphine (Suboxone). That is the conclusion of every expert panel and systematic review that has considered the question — including the World Health Organization, the Institute of Medicine, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Families are often wary of maintenance medications because they incorrectly believe that patients are “always high” or have simply “replaced one addiction with another.” But neither is true: Both of these drugs create a high level of tolerance for opioids, and, at the right dosages, both prevent the “high.”
When patients take a stable, regular and appropriate dose, maintenance medications don’t cause impairment, and the patient can work, love and drive. In essence, what maintenance does is replace addiction — which, remember, is defined as compulsive use despite consequences — with physiological dependence, which, as noted above, is not harmful in and of itself.
In contrast, abstinence-based rehabs — typically, inpatient programs that last 28 days or longer, such as the one seen in “Celebrity Rehab” — have not been found to be effective. In the U.K., researchers looked at data from more than 150,000 people treated for opioid addiction from 2005 to 2009 and found that those on buprenorphine or methadone had half the death rate compared with those who engaged in any type of abstinence-oriented treatment. The highest level of medical evidence — a systematic review conducted under the rules of the Cochrane Collaboration2 — shows that methadone and buprenorphine are about equivalent in effectiveness. (Although, as with all medications, some people will find one far better than the other, and methadone seems to be better for those who have used higher doses of drugs for longer.) “They consider it a settled question and say that we don’t need any more studies; that’s how strong the evidence is,” Willenbring said, noting how rare it is for research organizations to make such statements.
“Rehab kills people,” Willenbring said, adding that the model for the 28-day rehab, Minnesota’s Hazelden Foundation, began offering buprenorphine maintenance itself in 2012 after a series of patient deaths immediately after treatment. Hazelden’s medical director, Dr. Marvin Seppala, told me when the rehab announced the change that using these medications is “the responsible thing to do” because of their potential to save lives.
Although it may sometimes be necessary for people to move away from places where their lives have become totally wrapped up in drugs, expensive abstinence-only inpatient programs or unregulated “sober houses,” which are often anything but, are not the only or even necessarily the best way to achieve this. Finding a place where someone can live safely long term is a different challenge than finding treatment; they don’t have to be combined. Outpatient services can often be better tailored to a particular person’s needs.
Vivitrol, a medication that completely blocks the action of opioids, is another, newer medication option. It is being heavily promoted by its manufacturer, particularly for use in criminal justice settings like drug courts. However, it does not have the track record of safety and mortality reduction of methadone and buprenorphine. “It’s an unproven therapy, and there is no good reason to consider it, since we have two therapies that are among the most heavily researched and evidence-based and powerful treatments in all of medicine,” Willenbring said.
Compton is more positive about Vivitrol, even as he agrees that there is more evidence for the other drugs. “I’m grateful that we have options and choices,” he said. Some people who refuse other medications or have serious side effects from them may benefit.
The Food and Drug Administration has also just approved probuphine, an implant slow-release version of buprenorphine, which could help those who find it difficult to take buprenorphine every day and which can also prevent diversion of buprenorphine to people who aren’t in treatment.
by Maia Szalavitz, FiveThirtyEight | Read more:
Image: Angie Wang
Families are sometimes overwhelmed with conflicting advice about what should come next. Much of the advice given by treatment groups and programs ignores what the data says in a similar way that anti-vaccination or climate skeptic websites ignore science. The addictions field is neither adequately regulated nor effectively overseen. There are no federal standards for counseling practices or rehab programs. In many states, becoming an addiction counselor doesn’t require a high school degree or any standardized training. “There’s nothing professional about it, and it’s not evidence-based,” said Dr. Mark Willenbring, the former director of treatment research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, who now runs a clinic that treats addictions.
Consequently, families are often given guidance that bears no resemblance to what the research evidence shows — and patients are commonly subjected to treatment that is known to do harm. People who are treated as experts firmly proclaim that they know what they are doing, but often turn out to base their care entirely on their own personal and clinical experience, not data. “Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew,” which many people see as an example of the best care available, for instance, used an approach that is not known to be effective for opioid addiction. More than 13 percent of its participants died after treatment, mainly of overdoses that could potentially have been prevented with evidence-based care. Unethical practices such as taking kickbacks for patient referrals are also rampant.For nearly three decades, I’ve been writing about addiction and drug policy. I’ve dived into the data and written several books on the subject, including an exposé of tough love programs for troubled teens. I’ve also had personal experience: What got me interested in the area was my own struggle with heroin and cocaine addiction in the 1980s.
To try to help sort fact from fiction, I’ve put together an evidence-based guide about what the science of opioid addiction recommends for people trying to help a loved one suffering from addiction. This guide is based on the best research data available in the addictions field right now: systematic reviews, clinical trials of medications and talk therapies, and large collections of real-world data from many countries — all using the highest level of evidence available, based on the standards of evidence-based medicine.
Accurately assess the problem
If you are concerned that a loved one may be addicted to opioids, it’s important to first understand the nature of addiction. In the past, researchers believed addiction just meant that someone needed a substance to function without suffering withdrawal. But now medical experts such as the National Institute on Drug Abuse define addiction as compulsive drug use that continues regardless of negative consequences.
That’s different from just depending on a daily dose. The latter is called physiological dependence; it affects almost anyone who takes opioids daily long term. “Physiological dependence is the normal response to regular dosages of many medications, whether opioids or others. It also happens with beta blockers for high blood pressure,” said Dr. Wilson Compton, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Although many chronic pain patients are physically dependent on opioids, few develop the life-threatening compulsive pattern of drug use that signifies addiction.
To that point, pain treatment is not the most significant risk factor for addiction. Far greater risk comes from simply being young and from using alcohol and other recreational drugs heavily. Ninety percent of all drug addictions start in the teens — and 75 percent of prescription opioid misuse begins when (mainly young) people get pills from friends, family or dealers — not doctors. Opioids are rarely the first drug people misuse.
Once addiction develops, it is often not hard to recognize. Signs of recent opioid use include pinpoint pupils, sleepiness, “nodding” and scratching. Common signs of addiction include constant money problems; arrests; track marks and infections from needle use; lying about drug use; irritability and, when drugs can’t be obtained, physical withdrawal symptoms such as shaking, dilated pupils, nausea, diarrhea and vomiting.
Importantly, when opioid addiction occurs, it is rarely someone’s only mental health problem. The majority of people with opioid addictions have a pre-existing mental illness or personality disorder (typically, half or more are affected). Common conditions include depression, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder, and antisocial personality disorder (more common in men) or borderline personality disorder (women).
Some studies find rates of these pre-existing problems among people with heroin addiction as high as 93 percent. Two-thirds have experienced at least one severe trauma during childhood; among women with heroin addiction, rates of child sexual abuse alone can be that high or higher.
Addressing these underlying issues is usually essential to successful treatment — but unfortunately, many treatment programs are just not equipped to do so, despite claiming otherwise.
If you are concerned that a loved one may be addicted to opioids, it’s important to first understand the nature of addiction. In the past, researchers believed addiction just meant that someone needed a substance to function without suffering withdrawal. But now medical experts such as the National Institute on Drug Abuse define addiction as compulsive drug use that continues regardless of negative consequences.
That’s different from just depending on a daily dose. The latter is called physiological dependence; it affects almost anyone who takes opioids daily long term. “Physiological dependence is the normal response to regular dosages of many medications, whether opioids or others. It also happens with beta blockers for high blood pressure,” said Dr. Wilson Compton, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Although many chronic pain patients are physically dependent on opioids, few develop the life-threatening compulsive pattern of drug use that signifies addiction.
To that point, pain treatment is not the most significant risk factor for addiction. Far greater risk comes from simply being young and from using alcohol and other recreational drugs heavily. Ninety percent of all drug addictions start in the teens — and 75 percent of prescription opioid misuse begins when (mainly young) people get pills from friends, family or dealers — not doctors. Opioids are rarely the first drug people misuse.
Once addiction develops, it is often not hard to recognize. Signs of recent opioid use include pinpoint pupils, sleepiness, “nodding” and scratching. Common signs of addiction include constant money problems; arrests; track marks and infections from needle use; lying about drug use; irritability and, when drugs can’t be obtained, physical withdrawal symptoms such as shaking, dilated pupils, nausea, diarrhea and vomiting.
Importantly, when opioid addiction occurs, it is rarely someone’s only mental health problem. The majority of people with opioid addictions have a pre-existing mental illness or personality disorder (typically, half or more are affected). Common conditions include depression, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder, and antisocial personality disorder (more common in men) or borderline personality disorder (women).
Some studies find rates of these pre-existing problems among people with heroin addiction as high as 93 percent. Two-thirds have experienced at least one severe trauma during childhood; among women with heroin addiction, rates of child sexual abuse alone can be that high or higher.
Addressing these underlying issues is usually essential to successful treatment — but unfortunately, many treatment programs are just not equipped to do so, despite claiming otherwise.
Intervene gently
On “Intervention,” and other addiction-related reality TV shows, families are advised to plan a confrontation with their loved ones, aimed at delivering an ultimatum: Accept the treatment we’ve chosen for you or face “tough love,” even expulsion from the family. But the data doesn’t support this approach.
“Don’t do it,” Willenbring said. “Interventions are almost always destructive, and sometimes, they destroy families.”
“The pure tough love approach does not seem particularly effective and is sometimes quite cruel and potentially counterproductive,” Compton said.
Research on a compassionate, supportive alternative, known as Community Reinforcement and Family Therapy, finds that it is at least twice as effective at getting people into treatment, when compared with the traditional type of intervention or with 12-step programs like Al-Anon for family members. In CRAFT, family members are taught how to reduce conflict and positively motivate addicted loved ones to begin and sustain recovery. Both parties are also taught self-care skills and ways to help avoid relapse. CRAFT’s technique has none of the risks of cutting a family member out of your life. (...)
Choose treatment supported by research
Because opioid addiction rarely exists by itself, experts recommend starting any search for treatment with a complete psychiatric evaluation by an independent psychiatrist who is not affiliated with a particular treatment program. That way, you know what kind of additional services and care will be needed and can look for professionals who address this.
For opioid addiction itself, however, the best treatment is indefinite, possibly lifelong maintenance with either methadone or buprenorphine (Suboxone). That is the conclusion of every expert panel and systematic review that has considered the question — including the World Health Organization, the Institute of Medicine, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Families are often wary of maintenance medications because they incorrectly believe that patients are “always high” or have simply “replaced one addiction with another.” But neither is true: Both of these drugs create a high level of tolerance for opioids, and, at the right dosages, both prevent the “high.”
When patients take a stable, regular and appropriate dose, maintenance medications don’t cause impairment, and the patient can work, love and drive. In essence, what maintenance does is replace addiction — which, remember, is defined as compulsive use despite consequences — with physiological dependence, which, as noted above, is not harmful in and of itself.
In contrast, abstinence-based rehabs — typically, inpatient programs that last 28 days or longer, such as the one seen in “Celebrity Rehab” — have not been found to be effective. In the U.K., researchers looked at data from more than 150,000 people treated for opioid addiction from 2005 to 2009 and found that those on buprenorphine or methadone had half the death rate compared with those who engaged in any type of abstinence-oriented treatment. The highest level of medical evidence — a systematic review conducted under the rules of the Cochrane Collaboration2 — shows that methadone and buprenorphine are about equivalent in effectiveness. (Although, as with all medications, some people will find one far better than the other, and methadone seems to be better for those who have used higher doses of drugs for longer.) “They consider it a settled question and say that we don’t need any more studies; that’s how strong the evidence is,” Willenbring said, noting how rare it is for research organizations to make such statements.
“Rehab kills people,” Willenbring said, adding that the model for the 28-day rehab, Minnesota’s Hazelden Foundation, began offering buprenorphine maintenance itself in 2012 after a series of patient deaths immediately after treatment. Hazelden’s medical director, Dr. Marvin Seppala, told me when the rehab announced the change that using these medications is “the responsible thing to do” because of their potential to save lives.
Although it may sometimes be necessary for people to move away from places where their lives have become totally wrapped up in drugs, expensive abstinence-only inpatient programs or unregulated “sober houses,” which are often anything but, are not the only or even necessarily the best way to achieve this. Finding a place where someone can live safely long term is a different challenge than finding treatment; they don’t have to be combined. Outpatient services can often be better tailored to a particular person’s needs.
Vivitrol, a medication that completely blocks the action of opioids, is another, newer medication option. It is being heavily promoted by its manufacturer, particularly for use in criminal justice settings like drug courts. However, it does not have the track record of safety and mortality reduction of methadone and buprenorphine. “It’s an unproven therapy, and there is no good reason to consider it, since we have two therapies that are among the most heavily researched and evidence-based and powerful treatments in all of medicine,” Willenbring said.
Compton is more positive about Vivitrol, even as he agrees that there is more evidence for the other drugs. “I’m grateful that we have options and choices,” he said. Some people who refuse other medications or have serious side effects from them may benefit.
The Food and Drug Administration has also just approved probuphine, an implant slow-release version of buprenorphine, which could help those who find it difficult to take buprenorphine every day and which can also prevent diversion of buprenorphine to people who aren’t in treatment.
by Maia Szalavitz, FiveThirtyEight | Read more:
Image: Angie Wang
Dow Jones Sent Mother of All Nastygrams to CalPERS Over Its Massive Copyright Infringement
In June, we exposed how CalPERS had engaged in massive copyright fraud. As we anticipated, the publishers from which CalPERS has taken the most articles, Dow Jones and the New York Times, are aggressively pursuing their claims. Both publishers have made clear that they expect CalPERS to write very large checks. Bloomberg also contacted CalPERS. They are willing to speak to us about the current status but due to a scheduling mishap on my end, I did not connect with them yesterday. I’ll provide a short update or separate post when I have further information.
By way of background, from our second post on this story:
The New York Times was the first to act and read us its cease and desist letter, which only demanded that CalPERS remove the purloined articles within three business days or face further action. Based on both its history and input from knowledgeable parties, we expected that Dow Jones, from which CalPERS had taken the most stories, would pursue its claims against CalPERS aggressively and seek large monetary damages.
We made a Public Records Act request to CalPERS. The thin response nevertheless makes for lively reading. It shows that both Dow Jones and the New York Times are loaded for bear. If nothing else, be sure to read the letter from Dow Jones’ litigation counsel, Patterson Bellknap Webb & Tyler, which starts on page 4 of the PDF embedded at the end of this post.
Even though the records are largely self-explanatory, let us offer some observations:
The Dow Jones nastygram is in a league of its own. I’ve seen quite a few demand letters in my day, and I’ve never seen anything remotely like this one. Neither have any of the lawyers and legally-savvy people I’ve asked to look at it. And even though the New York Times didn’t lay down the law in such explicit detail, the short note from its counsel to CalPERS CEO Marcie Brown was also exceedingly firm.
The reason for such aggressive postures, as we’ve set forth longer form in earlier posts, is that copyright law is extremely favorable to copyright holders. It is inconceivable for CalPERS to get out of this mess if the publishers pursue their claims, and Dow Jones and the New York Times have already started down that path.
CalPERS is looking at easily $30 million of damages. An expert had said that Dow Jones had gotten eight figure settlements in similar cases. We had compared the CalPERS violation to a 2003 case, Lowry’s Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason Inc, in which Lowry’s was awarded $19.2 million in damages. If you read a recap of the legal issues, you will see that Lowry’s pursue copyright claims only, which allow for damages of up to $150,000 per violation for willful infringement.
If you read the letter from Patterson Bellknap to CalPERS, it asserts another basis for damages in addition to copyright infringement, which allows publishers to seek either statutory damages of $750 to as much as $150,0000 in the case of willful infringement per copyrighted work.
CalPERS is also liable for damages due to having stripped out “copyright management information” under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The damages are up to $25,000 plus attorney’s fees per each stripping of the copyright information from a copyrighted work. As mind-boggling as additional damages of up to $25,000 per copyrighted work seems, the language suggests that it might be possible to have more than one stripping of copyright management information per work, depending on how the publisher incorporated it.
By way of background, from our second post on this story:
In the early morning on June 9, we reported that CalPERS had engaged in systematic copyright infringement by operating a daily news site that had published the full text of news stories from many publications for years.
Because CalPERS refused to take down its website even after it was caught out, we set out to determine the full extent of the misconduct.
From the inception of the site on August 2, 2009 through June 9, 2017, CalPERS has published the full text of over 50,000 articles. These articles were on an internet address open to any member of the public. All the articles were in a standardized format. None had any indicators that the CalPERS had paid the license fees to allow it to present them to its roughly 2,700 employees and board members, such as notices of copyright that publishers typically require for authorized republication. (...)…As we explain in more detail, every lawyer with copyright or intellectual property expertise that we consulted said that for publications that registered their copyrights, CalPERS has no defense.
The New York Times was the first to act and read us its cease and desist letter, which only demanded that CalPERS remove the purloined articles within three business days or face further action. Based on both its history and input from knowledgeable parties, we expected that Dow Jones, from which CalPERS had taken the most stories, would pursue its claims against CalPERS aggressively and seek large monetary damages.
We made a Public Records Act request to CalPERS. The thin response nevertheless makes for lively reading. It shows that both Dow Jones and the New York Times are loaded for bear. If nothing else, be sure to read the letter from Dow Jones’ litigation counsel, Patterson Bellknap Webb & Tyler, which starts on page 4 of the PDF embedded at the end of this post.
Even though the records are largely self-explanatory, let us offer some observations:
The Dow Jones nastygram is in a league of its own. I’ve seen quite a few demand letters in my day, and I’ve never seen anything remotely like this one. Neither have any of the lawyers and legally-savvy people I’ve asked to look at it. And even though the New York Times didn’t lay down the law in such explicit detail, the short note from its counsel to CalPERS CEO Marcie Brown was also exceedingly firm.
The reason for such aggressive postures, as we’ve set forth longer form in earlier posts, is that copyright law is extremely favorable to copyright holders. It is inconceivable for CalPERS to get out of this mess if the publishers pursue their claims, and Dow Jones and the New York Times have already started down that path.
CalPERS is looking at easily $30 million of damages. An expert had said that Dow Jones had gotten eight figure settlements in similar cases. We had compared the CalPERS violation to a 2003 case, Lowry’s Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason Inc, in which Lowry’s was awarded $19.2 million in damages. If you read a recap of the legal issues, you will see that Lowry’s pursue copyright claims only, which allow for damages of up to $150,000 per violation for willful infringement.
If you read the letter from Patterson Bellknap to CalPERS, it asserts another basis for damages in addition to copyright infringement, which allows publishers to seek either statutory damages of $750 to as much as $150,0000 in the case of willful infringement per copyrighted work.
CalPERS is also liable for damages due to having stripped out “copyright management information” under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The damages are up to $25,000 plus attorney’s fees per each stripping of the copyright information from a copyrighted work. As mind-boggling as additional damages of up to $25,000 per copyrighted work seems, the language suggests that it might be possible to have more than one stripping of copyright management information per work, depending on how the publisher incorporated it.
by Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism | Read more:
Image: via:
[ed. Uh oh. See also: The Pension Fund That Ate California]
Sony RX0
Wow, must be new release day! First the new Olympus EM10 MKIII, and now this Sony RX0! While it may look like a GoPro clone, this one offers the RX100 series IQ in a shockproof, waterproof design. Oh, it’s also CRUSHPROOF which means it is bulletproof! With its 1″ sensor, this little guy can GO ANYWHERE and take beautiful imagery and video. 40X Super Slow Motion, SLOG-2 and 4K HDMI Output. Holy wowzers. This little guy could be the perfect do anything go anywhere type of camera for video and photo. Look at the footage below that was shot with the RX0 (ZERO).
Sony is always pushing the limits and this one, while it may look like a toy, if we go by the specs it is surely much more than that. I love my GoPro cameras, and use them for video all the time. With this one, we can get double duty out of it and MUCH MUCH more than any GoPro can give you. While I love my serious full size cameras, I am also a fan of small GoPro style camera that can do video and photo while fitting in a pocket. This looks to be the highest quality camera of this type ever released, and most feature packed and best built. This is some WOW tech all the way around.
Waterproof to 10M, shockproof to 2M and it can withstand forces of up to 440FT lbs.
No other camera of this kind has a 1″ sensor let alone a stacked 1″ CMOS sensor. Amazing speed, no rolling shutter, AF and a 24mm FOV with no distortion. Zeiss lens, and well, I WANT ONE so my order is in as I just realized there is nothing like this out there. Sony did it again.
by Steve Huff, SteveHuffPhoto | Read more:
Image: via:
[ed. Super specs, and small enough to hang off a lanyard on your neck. Totally cool. Video here.]
Sony is always pushing the limits and this one, while it may look like a toy, if we go by the specs it is surely much more than that. I love my GoPro cameras, and use them for video all the time. With this one, we can get double duty out of it and MUCH MUCH more than any GoPro can give you. While I love my serious full size cameras, I am also a fan of small GoPro style camera that can do video and photo while fitting in a pocket. This looks to be the highest quality camera of this type ever released, and most feature packed and best built. This is some WOW tech all the way around.Waterproof to 10M, shockproof to 2M and it can withstand forces of up to 440FT lbs.
No other camera of this kind has a 1″ sensor let alone a stacked 1″ CMOS sensor. Amazing speed, no rolling shutter, AF and a 24mm FOV with no distortion. Zeiss lens, and well, I WANT ONE so my order is in as I just realized there is nothing like this out there. Sony did it again.
by Steve Huff, SteveHuffPhoto | Read more:
Image: via:
[ed. Super specs, and small enough to hang off a lanyard on your neck. Totally cool. Video here.]
How Bullwinkle Taught Kids Sophisticated Political Satire
Mr. Chairman, I am against all foreign aid, especially to places like Hawaii and Alaska,” says Senator Fussmussen from the floor of a cartoon Senate in 1962. In the visitors’ gallery, Russian agents Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale are deciding whether to use their secret “Goof Gas” gun to turn the Congress stupid, as they did to all the rocket scientists and professors in the last episode of “Bullwinkle.”
Another senator wants to raise taxes on everyone under the age of 67. He, of course, is 68. Yet a third stands up to demand, “We’ve got to get the government out of government!” The Pottsylvanian spies decide their weapon is unnecessary: Congress is already ignorant, corrupt and feckless.
Hahahahaha. Oh, Washington.
That joke was a wheeze half a century ago, a cornball classic that demonstrates the essential charm of the “Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends,” the cartoon show that originally aired between 1959 and 1964 about a moose and a squirrel navigating Cold War politics.
Last month, we lost the great June Foray, the voice of Rocky the Flying Squirrel and many others. Her passing gave me pause to reflect on how important the show was during my formative years and how far-reaching is its influence on satire today. “Bullwinkle” was, like so many of the really good cartoons, technically before my time (I was born the year it ended). My sister and I caught it in syndication as part of our regular weekend cartoon lineup of Looney Tunes, “Jonny Quest,” and “The Jetsons,” from elementary through high school.
It wasn’t that Bullwinkle the character was especially compelling. He was an affable doofus with a loyal heart, if limited brainpower. Rocky was the more intelligent straight man: a less hostile Abbott to Bullwinkle’s more secure Costello. They were earnest do-gooders who took every obviously shady setup at face value. Their enemies were far cleverer, better resourced, and infinitely more cunning, but Rocky and Bullwinkle always prevailed. Always. For absolutely no good reason. It was a sendup of every Horatio Alger, Tom Swift, plucky-American-hero-wins-against-all-odds story ever made.
What we didn’t know in the ‘70s, when we were watching, that this was pretty subversive stuff for a children’s program made at the height of the Cold War. Watching this dumb moose and his rodent pal continually prevail against well-funded human saboteurs gave me pause to consider, even as a kid, that perhaps it is a silly idea to believe that just because we’re the good guys we should always expect to win.
by Beth Daniels, Smithsonian | Read more:
Image: Rocky and Bullwinkle
Another senator wants to raise taxes on everyone under the age of 67. He, of course, is 68. Yet a third stands up to demand, “We’ve got to get the government out of government!” The Pottsylvanian spies decide their weapon is unnecessary: Congress is already ignorant, corrupt and feckless.Hahahahaha. Oh, Washington.
That joke was a wheeze half a century ago, a cornball classic that demonstrates the essential charm of the “Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends,” the cartoon show that originally aired between 1959 and 1964 about a moose and a squirrel navigating Cold War politics.
Last month, we lost the great June Foray, the voice of Rocky the Flying Squirrel and many others. Her passing gave me pause to reflect on how important the show was during my formative years and how far-reaching is its influence on satire today. “Bullwinkle” was, like so many of the really good cartoons, technically before my time (I was born the year it ended). My sister and I caught it in syndication as part of our regular weekend cartoon lineup of Looney Tunes, “Jonny Quest,” and “The Jetsons,” from elementary through high school.
It wasn’t that Bullwinkle the character was especially compelling. He was an affable doofus with a loyal heart, if limited brainpower. Rocky was the more intelligent straight man: a less hostile Abbott to Bullwinkle’s more secure Costello. They were earnest do-gooders who took every obviously shady setup at face value. Their enemies were far cleverer, better resourced, and infinitely more cunning, but Rocky and Bullwinkle always prevailed. Always. For absolutely no good reason. It was a sendup of every Horatio Alger, Tom Swift, plucky-American-hero-wins-against-all-odds story ever made.
What we didn’t know in the ‘70s, when we were watching, that this was pretty subversive stuff for a children’s program made at the height of the Cold War. Watching this dumb moose and his rodent pal continually prevail against well-funded human saboteurs gave me pause to consider, even as a kid, that perhaps it is a silly idea to believe that just because we’re the good guys we should always expect to win.
by Beth Daniels, Smithsonian | Read more:
Image: Rocky and Bullwinkle
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Hang Son Doong
Hang Son Doong, World's Largest Cave
via:
[ed. I just heard about this yesterday (discovered in 1991, recently explored in 2009, even has its own rainforest and climate). More pictures here]
Friday, September 8, 2017
Equifax and Forced Arbitration Clauses
Equifax, the credit reporting bureau that on Thursday admitted one of the largest data breaches in history, affecting 143 million U.S. consumers, is maneuvering to prevent victims from banding together to sue the company, according to consumer protection advocates and elected officials.
Equifax is offering all those affected by the breach a free, one-year credit monitoring service called TrustedID Premier, which will watch credit reports for suspicious activity, lock and unlock Equifax credit reports, scan the internet for Social Security numbers, and add insurance for identity theft. But the service includes a forced arbitration clause, which pushes all disputes over the monitoring out of court. It also includes a waiver of the right to enter into a class-action lawsuit.
This shields TrustedID Premier from legal exposure, instead relying on a process that’s very favorable to corporate interests. At first the arbitration clause was a non-negotiable feature of the contract. Now Equifax says you can opt out, but only if you contact them in writing within 30 days.
There’s already a proposed class-action suit against Equifax itself, arguing that the company failed to protect consumer data and exposed hundreds of millions to identity theft. But if you can’t sue over the credit monitoring but only the credit breach, it could significantly lessen the damages at issue. Also the language of the arbitration clause is fairly broad, saying that those who agree to the credit monitoring “will be forfeiting your right to bring or participate in any class action … or to share in any class awards, even if the facts and circumstances upon which the claims are based already occurred or existed.” Presumably some defense lawyer is thinking up a clever way to apply that to the Equifax breach itself.
Equifax’s terms of service also include an arbitration clause, which is almost identical to the one in the credit monitoring agreement. It also includes an opt-out, but it’s not clear when the clock starts on that, since people are not informed of Equifax monitoring their credit in the first place. “Look up ‘shameless.’ There’s a new first definition: Equifax,” said Public Citizen president Robert Weissman in a statement.
In short, nobody asked Equifax to monitor their credit and then let hackers steal their data. But if these same victims have a problem with the company’s remedy for this massive breach, they have to do all the work to make sure they’re allowed to sue.
This has inspired fury, to put it mildly. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has asked Equifax to take down the arbitration clause entirely, calling it “unacceptable and unenforceable.”
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, did the same. “It’s shameful that Equifax would take advantage of victims by forcing people to sign over their rights in order to get credit monitoring services they wouldn’t even need if Equifax hadn’t put them at risk in the first place,” he said in a statement.
The breach, which includes names, Social Security numbers, birthdates, and driver’s license numbers, encompasses roughly three-quarters of all people with credit reports in the U.S. Even to check to see if you’re a victim of the breach, you have to give Equifax the last six digits of your Social Security number, which, given their track record, is a bit unnerving.
These arbitration clauses have been deemed so harmful to consumers that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued rules to ban the waiver of class-action rights within them. That rule was finalized in July, but doesn’t take effect on contracts until next March. This arbitration clause, in other words, would be illegal if it were presented in consumer contracts in the future.
[ed. ...but wait, there's more!] Equifax also faces investigation because three of its top managers sold $1.8 million in company stock after they learned of the data breach but before the company released that information to the public.
Equifax is offering all those affected by the breach a free, one-year credit monitoring service called TrustedID Premier, which will watch credit reports for suspicious activity, lock and unlock Equifax credit reports, scan the internet for Social Security numbers, and add insurance for identity theft. But the service includes a forced arbitration clause, which pushes all disputes over the monitoring out of court. It also includes a waiver of the right to enter into a class-action lawsuit.
This shields TrustedID Premier from legal exposure, instead relying on a process that’s very favorable to corporate interests. At first the arbitration clause was a non-negotiable feature of the contract. Now Equifax says you can opt out, but only if you contact them in writing within 30 days.There’s already a proposed class-action suit against Equifax itself, arguing that the company failed to protect consumer data and exposed hundreds of millions to identity theft. But if you can’t sue over the credit monitoring but only the credit breach, it could significantly lessen the damages at issue. Also the language of the arbitration clause is fairly broad, saying that those who agree to the credit monitoring “will be forfeiting your right to bring or participate in any class action … or to share in any class awards, even if the facts and circumstances upon which the claims are based already occurred or existed.” Presumably some defense lawyer is thinking up a clever way to apply that to the Equifax breach itself.
Equifax’s terms of service also include an arbitration clause, which is almost identical to the one in the credit monitoring agreement. It also includes an opt-out, but it’s not clear when the clock starts on that, since people are not informed of Equifax monitoring their credit in the first place. “Look up ‘shameless.’ There’s a new first definition: Equifax,” said Public Citizen president Robert Weissman in a statement.
In short, nobody asked Equifax to monitor their credit and then let hackers steal their data. But if these same victims have a problem with the company’s remedy for this massive breach, they have to do all the work to make sure they’re allowed to sue.
This has inspired fury, to put it mildly. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has asked Equifax to take down the arbitration clause entirely, calling it “unacceptable and unenforceable.”
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, did the same. “It’s shameful that Equifax would take advantage of victims by forcing people to sign over their rights in order to get credit monitoring services they wouldn’t even need if Equifax hadn’t put them at risk in the first place,” he said in a statement.
The breach, which includes names, Social Security numbers, birthdates, and driver’s license numbers, encompasses roughly three-quarters of all people with credit reports in the U.S. Even to check to see if you’re a victim of the breach, you have to give Equifax the last six digits of your Social Security number, which, given their track record, is a bit unnerving.
These arbitration clauses have been deemed so harmful to consumers that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued rules to ban the waiver of class-action rights within them. That rule was finalized in July, but doesn’t take effect on contracts until next March. This arbitration clause, in other words, would be illegal if it were presented in consumer contracts in the future.
[ed. ...but wait, there's more!] Equifax also faces investigation because three of its top managers sold $1.8 million in company stock after they learned of the data breach but before the company released that information to the public.
by David Dayen, The Intercept | Read more:
Image: Mike Stewart/AP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)