My Digital FootPrint

There are natural rhythms but we appear to ignore them in preference for rigid structure. Why have we lost the ideas and concepts humanity developed before our iWatch and Fitbit? When did time become our base for measurement and not rhythms? Indeed are rhythms important? “Time”, not spacetime, for us is fixed in chunks and measured by the universal “per second ”, with 1 second set by a cesium atomic clock , which are so accurate they will not drop 1 second in more than a billion years . But life is not like this and whilst time and distance are related, as is the need to have leap seconds to adjust for the earth's rotation, our life patterns are not as stable as the seconds we measure against. Where is the link to data and our digital life? We measure everything to the second and believe that with this measure, the data is correct. This data becomes our digital life clock and measurement rod. The point is that we have created a super accurate

image source :  http://www.buildbridgebond.com/ As a context I have explored the thinking that nature’s memory is not a digital memory and what are the implications of having perminancy of data (memory) in there two posts What type of memory does identity need? and Data is not Memory -- When in the charity (thrift) shop earlier this week, I was looking at the trinkets/ orderments that are largely from house clearances after someone has died. To that person who died these items were precious, valued and important. The trinket acted as a prompt or reminder of an important time, place, activity or relationship. However, without the person who made and holds that memory, the value of the item is lost to a resale value in a charity shop. Whilst it would be good to be able to create and pass on memories, which we do as learning and stories, we actually don’t pass on everything it has to be learnt and created in every case ( unlike machines and compute). Given w

“ Data is Data ” explored that data is not oil but that data is something that is unique and we should call it for what it is; #Data. The reason explained is that all the analogies: oil, gold, sunshine, commodities, time and labour, fail to bring out the uniqueness of data. Whilst the thinking explored in that post still stands, a year on I have to challenge one key assumption, which I will come to. I recently posted ideas of where memory comes from , and specifically the links between memory and identity. We have different types of “memory” for myself, society and nature and now data/ digital might be creating a new type of memory. The reason memory and its link to data is worth exploring is that both depend on relationships to derive “value.” Data without relationships is worthless. Memory without relationship (connection) is worthless. The assumption that we need to look, “In our complex digital world what type of “memory” do we want the system to have?” Memor

image source : https://diffzi.com/merger-vs-acquisition/ Have been challenged to rethink certain growth models and the often significant issues created by: buy, merge and acquire thinking as opposed to invest and build.  The data (success as value created as realized in 3 years as per plan) from BigCo takes over MinnowCo is not good (1 in 10 achieve above plan), the same type of data from BigCo takes over SmallCo is no better with only 8 in 100 achieving plan.  Near equal size takeover/ merger of BigCo and BigCo is unknown on plan, but market data would suggest it is not great either.   On a pure financial measure as a decision, surly the risk class of M&A activity for value creation would be near junk level, In all other classes of risk - such activities would not be approved.  However, there is way more at stake than pure financial metrics such as exits, vesting, relalisable gain, bonuses and incentives.  Assumption 1 + 1 = 3.     A question is why is the purpose of

Whilst the quote focuses on the human memory as a means to create personal identity, the question to be looked at is “What types of memory do we have”, and “what do these memory type mean for identity?” The types of memory we have is somewhat easier to break out and explore, in fact so are the types of identity. The core of this article is the thinking about complexity that arises when we explore the interaction between memory and identity. This is very much a thought piece that needs lots of debate, I hope this starts it. Memory Before we go to far, it is worth reading the wikipedia entry on all memory as it breaks out the many uses of the word in different contexts. Nature has a wide variety of memory techniques, but none of the naturally occurring ones are similar to the one we propose to create for digital identity (near perfect). Our existing paper identity systems are closer to nature than the digital one we propose; existing schemes generally get worse over time, solve

Digital and data can be viewed as enabling and world-making; or as disruptive and world-changing. In other words, the philosophy of digital and data is as formative as tech can get.  We know it is hard to make sense of this virtual digital world, in the same way it is for us to sense the roundness of our earth when we only see the flat horizons or indeed grasp the size of our galaxy or scale the universe.  The impact of digital is complex, ambiguous, dependent and uncertain.   The realisation of the impact of digital is not a science and right now requires judgment on behalf of leaders, pioneers and adventurers; as we as a society wrestle with the unknown benefits, complexity, compromises and problems digital life throws up. The maturing of making everything digital means that we now have to understand and address a new culture, value system, purpose and governance; but when? Whilst there is no right time for everyone, as attention depends on the adoption to a specific marke

Here is a possible, step by step, idea to go from dytopia of data to utopia of data, the assumption being that the absence of privacy, security and trust is dystopia and if we had them all at an individual level we would be on a path to a better data world.  Therefore if we want to end with Privacy, Security and Trust and start with nothing, what does the journey look like by guaranteeing different functions.  Worry less about agreeing with my commentary, what and who would you put in each scenario?