The (Scary) Circle

Some movies are supposed to be scary, some are unintentionally so. I haven't yet decided which best describes "The Circle", currently available via Netflix. We watched it last week, and it scared me! George Orwell's "1984" seemed to be coming to life, but in slightly different guise and flavour. Remember that famous quote attributed (possibly mistakenly) to Sinclair Lewis? "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" ? After watching "The Circle" I decided a re-phrase of that quote would be apt: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the internet and carrying a smartphone."

"The Circle" is a movie adaptation of Dave Egger's 2013 novel of the same name. It's a cautionary tale, the story of a young tech worker, Mae Holland, played by Emma Watson. She gets an entry-level job with The Circle, a powerful internet corporation based in The Bay Area, California.

The Circle stores data, unbelievably huge amounts of data: financial, medical, social, personal, about its account holders. The Circle's leaders convince account holders that collection of their data is for their own convenience and will bring about a better life experience. Open sharing is good, they are told constantly. There are no grim oppressors here, their role in this digital age is taken over by smarmy, insincere Machiavellian figures, played by Tom Hanks and Patton Oswalt.

The Circle, the original 2013 novel, was set in what was then the near future - a near future so near now, in 2018, that you can taste it! Some elements of the story are already here.

I'll not outline the story in detail, in case any stray reader might want to read the book or see the movie. There are numerous reviews around the net for anyone curious to know more. Reviewers in general are not impressed with the movie adaptation, though most do say that the theme is a good one - the adaptation for screen could have been handled better. I agree. There was something missing, for me. I found The Circle scary and prescient though, because of what I've read about today's social network websites. The movie's worst failing, I thought, was that it felt flat, in tone. Tom Hanks played the part he was supposed to play well enough, yet it's not easy to erase his long-time chat show image: a genuinely nice, good guy. A different actor in that part could have added extra edge and a brisker tone. Let's see, who can play smarmy, charismatic, but basically manipulative and...well...bad, with no ingrained "good guy" background?
Bryan Cranston? James Spader?

Facing F-Book

"The inexorable growth of Google, Facebook, and Amazon has raised fears these giants are becoming too powerful. Here's everything you need to know":

THE NEW MONOPOLIES

The piece is reasonably brief yet informative on issues which are only recently starting to be addressed.

With reference to just one of the three entities discussed in the piece linked above, Facebook, and its burgeoning power, this problem has more, and even more dangerous, tentacles than simply making outside competition difficult or impossible. Below is a single paragraph from another piece, long but well worth the time:
You Are the Product by John Lanchester at London Review of Books.
(My highlighting)

....What this means is that even more than it is in the advertising business, Facebook is in the surveillance business. Facebook, in fact, is the biggest surveillance-based enterprise in the history of mankind. It knows far, far more about you than the most intrusive government has ever known about its citizens. It’s amazing that people haven’t really understood this about the company. I’ve spent time thinking about Facebook, and the thing I keep coming back to is that its users don’t realise what it is the company does. What Facebook does is watch you, and then use what it knows about you and your behaviour to sell ads. I’m not sure there has ever been a more complete disconnect between what a company says it does – ‘connect’, ‘build communities’ – and the commercial reality. Note that the company’s knowledge about its users isn’t used merely to target ads but to shape the flow of news to them. Since there is so much content posted on the site, the algorithms used to filter and direct that content are the thing that determines what you see: people think their news feed is largely to do with their friends and interests, and it sort of is, with the crucial proviso that it is their friends and interests as mediated by the commercial interests of Facebook. Your eyes are directed towards the place where they are most valuable for Facebook.

That highlighted phrase is, or should be, chilling. It doesn't take much imagination to understand what could be possible, stemming from it, at some time in the near future. It's also not too comforting to read that Facebook's creator, Mark Zuckerberg has further aspirations - of becoming US President, there's some evidence that he is considering becoming a candidate in 2020's presidential campaign.

TIDBITS

The Google logo makeover. I did wonder. This piece offers explanation - boils down to the fact that the new logo's style is easier to scale down for all the small handheld devices now out in the wild.
Article HERE.


Well...this'll put the art forgers out of business - or speed up their output, one or t'other!
Can't say I'm surprised that this kind of thing has become possible, and a reality.
This algorithm can create a new Van Gogh or Picasso in just an hour


A bit of chit-chat on the topic of punctuation marks - how they got their rather odd (when you think about it) names. Hyphen, colon, comma and, of course the apostrophe, that much loved accessory of online punctuation police everywhere.
Article HERE

And...not forgetting to say:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
to BERNIE SANDERS.

Mr Google, Mr Blogger....

We should wish our host, Larry Page, god of Google, overlord of all Blogger blogs, a happy birthday. He was born 26 March 1973.

Pyra Labs originally created the Blogger service in 1999. It was acquired by Google in 2003. Pyra was co-founded by Evan Williams( born March 31, 1972, also Aries Sun like Page) and Meg Hourihan (d.o.b. unknown).

Let's have a gander at Mr. Page's natal chart, it'll be set for 12 noon as no time of birth is available:

Without time of birth Moon's position can't be plotted exactly. If Page were born before around 7.00am Moon would have been in Sagittarius, any time after that, in early Capricorn. Capricorn fits his obvious business sense -

Wiki: As of 2014, Page's personal wealth is estimated to be US$32.3 billion, ranking him #17 on the Forbes list of billionaires.

Sagittarius Moon would reflect Google's world-wide application as well as Page's wider ranging interests beyond Google (Tesla Motors, hybrid vehicles,alternative energy investment, philanthropic ventures, etc.)

Ascendant can't be calculated without birth-time.

Sun and Venus in Aries, sign of the enthusiastic initiator is very appropriate, especially with Jupiter at 6 Aquarius sextile Sun/Venus, adding Aquarian innovation and Jupitarian expansive reach to the mix.

One would confidently expect to see some prominent reflection relating to information communication in this chart. Yes, it's here! Saturn in Gemini in harmonious trine to Uranus in Libra, an Airy harmony producing a nice blend of career-based mentally oriented communication and innovation. Saturn in Gemini also opposes Neptune in Sagittarius: possibly balancing any flighty or too-fanciful notions with a cool Saturnian business-oriented eye? That is also echoed in Mercury the communications planet in Neptune-ruled Pisces, squared by Saturn in Gemini (sign ruled by Mercury).

The Google and I - "Getting to know me, getting to know all about me....."

In 2009 I read about and wrote a bit about Raymond Kurzweil (and his natal chart). I then felt much admiration for the guy. By 2013 though my admiration was tinged with annoyance that his brilliant mind wasn't being used to address the world's greatest needs.

Now what's he up to?

Google Will Soon Know You Better Than Your Spouse Does, Top Exec Says

Snip:

In short, the Observer writes, Kurzweil believes that Google will soon "know the answer to your question before you have asked it. It will have read every email you've ever written, every document, every idle thought you've ever tapped into a search-engine box. It will know you better than your intimate partner does. Better, perhaps, than even yourself."

As creepy as this may sound to some, Kurzweil -- who has long contended that computers will outsmart us by 2029 -- believes that the improvement of artificial intelligence is merely the next step in our evolution.

"[Artificial intelligence] is not an intelligent invasion from Mars," he told the Montecito Journal in 2012, per a post on his website. "These are brain extenders that we have created to expand our own mental reach. They are part of our civilization. They are part of who we are.

Another article on the same topic, by Carole Cadwalladr is at The Guardian:
Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…
Ray Kurzweil popularised the Teminator-like moment he called the 'singularity', when artificial intelligence overtakes human thinking. But now the man who hopes to be immortal is involved in the very same quest – on behalf of the tech behemoth..............

Dang! I'll repeat my last year's criticism : is this the kind of thing the best and brightest scientific brains on the planet ought to be focusing on? How about lending a few genius-tinted thoughts to climate change, worsening water shortages, and new power sources to name but a few? The world needs its best and brightest minds on such problems right now. If someone doesn't focus on these issues there will not be much of a world left upon which Google could practice its all-seeing, all-knowing crapola.

ROBBER-BARONITIS

A robber baron, originally, was an unscrupulous and despotic nobleman of medieval Europe. The term is also used to describe wealthy and powerful unscrupulous industrialists of the 19th century who used exploitative practices to amass their wealth. They would exert control over national resources, gain a high level of government influence, pay extremely low wages to their unfortunate employees, quash competition by buying out competitors in order to create monopolies and eventually raise prices and limit services, and devise schemes to sell stock at inflated prices to unsuspecting investors in a manner which would eventually destroy the company for which the stock was issued and impoverish investors. (Wikipedia)

I did a bit of light research on Google's two entrepreneurs, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, then went on to look into that other internet giant, Amazon, and its CEO and founder Jeff Bezos (below). Are these three individuals some of the 21st century's equivalents of 19th century robber barons? They are now certainly among the wealthiest individuals in the USA, multi-billionaires, (allegedly more than 20 billion each, and # 11 and 13 on the Forbes 400 list). All three experienced meteoric rise from the mid 1990s onward, in tandem with mushrooming of the internet.

I am becoming frustrated and annoyed with Google's ongoing shenanigans. Having forced me into using their Chrome browser because Blogger's (now owned by Google) new interface is incompatible with the most up to date version of Internet Explorer my XP pro operating system is compatible with, there then arose an issue with the e mail address associated with my Blogger/Google account. I am to be forced to provide a second e mail address. I don't want to do so. Chrome will not function without my doing so. Firefox to the rescue. What'll happen when Google buys out Firefox?

Google has become way, way too big for its boots with too many tentacles! Much as I admire the skills and talent involved, and the wondrous search engine, I can't help thinking that the interests of users have, latterly, been well and truly sidelined. I don't know how Google treats its staff, but they tend to treat users of their services with deep disdain.

Amazon, on the instruction of their CEO, do put the interests of their customers first at all times, but often to the detriment of their staff members. Staff are badly paid and in some cases expected to work excessive hours in poor conditions with no sick pay should they fall ill. Amazon's undeniable efficiency is achieved at the expense of its workers - in conditions loosely comparable to Walmart's staff treatment.

Admittedly, these examples of 21st century robber baronitis are not nearly as nasty as 19th century counterparts, they are not the worst 21st century examples either, but they are two very familiar to all who spend time online every day. There is, though, potential for even worse to come. Google has access to information on everyone who uses the internet, and on what we do online. If such information were to be only slightly expanded, maybe released to government by mandate, results could prove to have unpleasant consequences - doesn't take much imagination to see that!

Google and Amazon: two examples of how excellent innovative ideas from brilliant minds, with initially good intention, can become corrupted by intoxication of success and then morph, like some unwieldy drunk, into an entity the men may not have originally envisaged. They are now blinded by the size and power of the behemoths they created.