Swift - is a robust and intuitive programming language created by Apple for building apps for iOS, Mac, Apple TV, and Apple Watch. It's designed to give developers more freedom
than ever. Swift is easy to use and open-source, so anyone with an idea can create something incredible.
Objective-C was the original language Apple released for iOS app development prior to Swift. It was first released 24 years ago in 1984
The official language for Android development in Java. Large parts of Android are written in Java and its APIs are designed to be called primarily from Java. It is possible to develop
C and C++ apps using the Android Native Development Kit, however, it isn't something that Google Promotes
variation true vs magnetic north
deviation disturbances from magnetic field
north south turning error unos undershoot north overshoot south
acceleration errors ands accelerate north decelerate south
Morning Call: 1st Chakra Ek = One; 2nd Chakra Ong = Creative force; 3rd Chakra Kar = The doer or the initiator in the world of action; 4th Chakra Sat = Truth; 5th Chakra Nam = Name; 6th Chakra Siri = Seeing beyond the greatness; 7th Chakra Wahe Guru = Wow! The indescribable joy of going from darkness to light
Akaamay: God is beyond desire. This is asking us to let go of the quality or experience of desire, because it only causes pain to be desiring something outside of yourself. The experience that will fulfill us most deeply is already happening within. Being in touch with this inner space will help you to give more fully to your loved ones in a way that feels joyful and true. I invite you to take a deep breath, close your eyes, and go into your interior space, and feel what is within you.
Nirnaamay: God is without Name. So, here we are as human beings with our minds, trying to define and name everything. That is the power and the job of the mind. It’s good. We need names to anchor into our knowledge and awareness. God also has many names from many traditions, and when we chant those names, we are uplifted. However, here in this mantra, we are going to let go of all of that and go into the unknown. Like a baby being born who does not have a language, and like an old man who breathes his last breath wordlessly, we are brought back into the essential nature of existence. We are asked to let go of our knowledge and just be in the flow of Spirit. Try it out for a moment.
Karee-ang: God creates. As soon as something is destroyed, by law of the universe, another thing is created. New blessings come into our lives constantly. Take a moment to feel all of the blessings created for you on this day. And also feel your own creativity as the Divine flows through you, trusting that your inner knowing voice is guiding you.
Haree-ang: God destroys. Let’s say, for example, that everything is falling apart in your life, and you are being torn apart by that experience. This is the energy of haree-ang. When we come into alignment with our Soul, through the power of breath and practice, we begin to see that what’s being destroyed is actually not in alignment with our Soul’s destiny. Instead of a destruction that we resist, it becomes a destruction that allows us to shed our old ways and start fresh. Really, in each moment, as sure as we exhale, there is an elemental destruction occurring in the universe.
Mukanday: God liberates us. Feel yourself being released from the weight of the world. You are Spirit first, free to live in your truth. Udaaray: God gives to me. “Udaar” bounteous, infinite. Feel all of the blessings and gifts that God has given you in this life.
Apaaray: God is infinite. “Paar” to the other side, often used in terms of being carried across to the other side. Apaaray is the Divine One who is so infinite that there is not even another side. Allow yourself to be connected to this infinite energy.
Gobinday: God the Lord of this world: the Divine who created this world and takes care of it. “Go” earth, the world. “Bind” drop, information, knowledge, semen. Tune into this Divine energy that created you and this world, as a means of receiving help in terms of how to operate within the world. Mukanday: God liberates us. Feel yourself being released from the weight of the world. You are Spirit first, free to live in your truth. Udaaray: God gives to me. “Udaar” bounteous, infinite. Feel all of the blessings and gifts that God has given you in this life. Apaaray: God is infinite. “Paar” to the other side, often used in terms of being carried across to the other side. Apaaray is the Divine One who is so infinite that there is not even another side. Allow yourself to be connected to this infinite energy. Haree-ang: God destroys. Let’s say, for example, that everything is falling apart in your life, and you are being torn apart by that experience. This is the energy of haree-ang. When we come into alignment with our Soul, through the power of breath and practice, we begin to see that what’s being destroyed is actually not in alignment with our Soul’s destiny. Instead of a destruction that we resist, it becomes a destruction that allows us to shed our old ways and start fresh. Really, in each moment, as sure as we exhale, there is an elemental destruction occurring in the universe. Karee-ang: God creates. As soon as something is destroyed, by law of the universe, another thing is created. New blessings come into our lives constantly. Take a moment to feel all of the blessings created for you on this day. And also feel your own creativity as the Divine flows through you, trusting that your inner knowing voice is guiding you. Nirnaamay: God is without Name. So, here we are as human beings with our minds, trying to define and name everything. That is the power and the job of the mind. It’s good. We need names to anchor into our knowledge and awareness. God also has many names from many traditions, and when we chant those names, we are uplifted. However, here in this mantra, we are going to let go of all of that and go into the unknown. Like a baby being born who does not have a language, and like an old man who breathes his last breath wordlessly, we are brought back into the essential nature of existence. We are asked to let go of our knowledge and just be in the flow of Spirit. Try it out for a moment. Akaamay: God is beyond desire. This is asking us to let go of the quality or experience of desire, because it only causes pain to be desiring something outside of yourself. The experience that will fulfill us most deeply is already happening within. Being in touch with this inner space will help you to give more fully to your loved ones in a way that feels joyful and true. I invite you to take a deep breath, close your eyes, and go into your interior space, and feel what is within you.
Har Har Har Har Gobinday God God God God Lord of the World Har Har Har Har Mukanday God God God God Liberator Har Har Har Har Udaaray God God God God The Great Giver Har Har Har Har Apaaray God God God God Infinite Har Har Har Har Haree-ang God God God God Destroyer Har Har Har Har Karee-ang God God God God Creator Har Har Har Har Nirnaamay God God God God Without Name Har Har Har Har Akaamay God God God God Beyond Desire
three hundred and sixty cubic inches
one hundred and fifty horsepower
fourteen volt dc system
twelve volt battery
sixty amp alternator
A LÉON WERTH.
Je demande pardon aux enfants d'avoir dédié ce livre à une grande personne. J'ai une excuse sérieuse: cette grande personne est le meilleur ami que j'ai au monde. J'ai une autre excuse: cette grande personne peut tout comprendre, même les livres pour enfants. J'ai une troisième excuse: cette grande personne habite la France où elle a faim et froid. Elle a bien besoin d'être consolée. Si toutes ces excuses ne suffisent pas, je veux bien dédier ce livre à l'enfant qu'a été autrefois cette grande personne. Toutes les grandes personnes ont d'abord été des enfants. (Mais peu d'entre elles s'en souviennent.) Je corrige donc ma dédicace:
A LÉON WERTH
QUAND IL ÉTAIT PETIT GARÇON
Aire du triangle:A=b(sin(alpha))/2, comme base/hauteur divisé par deux
Aire du camember d'un triangle :A=alpha.r²/2 r étant rayon
CIRCONFERENCE du triangle: pi.r²
Aire du CERCLE: pi.r²
Propriétés du cercle: périmètre du camembert choisit:r.alpha(alpha étant le nombre de degrés ou radiants dans notre camembert
Un arc de cercle est une portion de cercle comprise entre deux points
Un secteur circulaire est une portion du disque limitée par deux rayons
périmètre c'est en cm ou m
aire c'est en cm² ou m²
Si on veut savoir A entre sin triangle et son secteur:
1)calculer l'angle formé par notre camembert avec la formule cosinus si on ne l'as pas:a²=b²+c²-2bc.cos(alpha)
3)Aire de la tranche de camembert=Alpha.r²-b.a.sin(alpha)
4)soustraire l'aire du triangle alpha à l'aire de la tranche
recommencer autremment si on a 2 cercles fusionnés par exemple
Domaine, ensemble-image, periode, amplitude,racines
Deux angles sont associés s'ils sont situés sur le même arc de cercle. Leur somme est toujours égale à 180°.
Deux angles sont supplémentaires s'ils forment un angle plat. Leur somme est donc égale à 180°.
Deux angles sont anti-supplémentaires s'ils forment un angle plat inversé. Leur somme est donc égale à 360°.
Deux angles sont opposés s'ils forment un angle droit. Leur somme est donc égale à 90°.
Imaginez un arc de cercle. Deux angles sont associés s'ils sont situés sur le même arc de cercle. Ils sont comme deux points sur un ruban. Si vous tournez le ruban, les deux points se déplacent ensemble.
La somme de deux angles associés est toujours égale à 180°. Cela signifie que si vous tournez le ruban jusqu'à ce que les deux points se touchent, ils forment un angle plat.
Image of Deux angles associésS'ouvre dans une nouvelle fenêtre
Deux angles sont supplémentaires s'ils forment un angle plat. Ils sont comme deux pièces d'un puzzle. Si vous les assemblez, ils forment un angle de 180°.
La somme de deux angles supplémentaires est donc égale à 180°.
Image of Deux angles supplémentairesS'ouvre dans une nouvelle fenêtre
Deux angles sont anti-supplémentaires s'ils forment un angle plat inversé. Ils sont comme deux pièces d'un puzzle qui peuvent être assemblées pour former un angle de 360°.
Image of Deux angles antisupplémentairesS'ouvre dans une nouvelle fenêtre
La somme de deux angles anti-supplémentaires est donc égale à 360°.
Deux angles sont opposés s'ils forment un angle droit. Ils sont comme deux pièces d'un puzzle qui peuvent être assemblées pour former un angle de 90°.
La somme de deux angles opposés est donc égale à 90°.
opposé=sinus opposé et moins alpha
supplemenaire=-tout sauf sin et pi moins alpha
anti-supplémentaire= moins sin et cos et pi+alpha
Will the separation of humans into different biological castes and different species occur? First, explain what this means then answer the question.
Harari speculates that advancements in biotechnology and genetic engineering might lead to the divergence of humans into different biological categories or even distinct species. This could happen if certain groups use technology to enhance their capabilities or traits, potentially creating a significant gap between different human populations.
Answer: The likelihood of this scenario occurring is uncertain. While technological advancements may lead to variations in human capabilities, the idea of complete separation into different species remains speculative and depends on ethical, social, and regulatory considerations.
Globalisation will unite the world horizontally by erasing national borders, but it will simultaneously divide humanity vertically. First, what does this mean? Second, do you agree with this idea? Explain your answer.
This means that while globalization connects people across nations, cultures, and economies, it can also exacerbate social and economic inequalities within societies. The horizontal unity refers to the interconnectedness on a global scale, while the vertical division signifies the potential widening gaps between different social and economic classes.
Answer: Whether one agrees with this idea depends on their perspective. Globalization has indeed brought people closer and facilitated cultural exchange, but it has also led to disparities within and between nations. The impact varies, and addressing these inequalities becomes crucial for ensuring the positive aspects of globalization benefit all.
Maybe there are no ‘we’. Maybe one of ‘our’ biggest problems is that different human groups will have completely different futures. Maybe in some parts of the world, you should teach your kids to write computer code, while in others, you had better teach them to draw fast and shoot straight. First, what does this mean? Second, do you agree with this idea? Explain your answer.
This suggests that the idea of a global, unified "we" might be flawed. Different regions and populations may face distinct challenges and opportunities, requiring diverse skill sets. The example illustrates the potential need for specialized education based on the socio-economic and technological contexts of different regions.
Answer: Agreement or disagreement depends on one's perspective. While recognizing global diversity is important, fostering a shared understanding and addressing universal challenges also remains crucial. Balancing regional needs with a sense of global community might be a more inclusive approach.
If we want to prevent the concentration of all wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, the key is to regulate the ownership of data. Why?
Harari argues that as data becomes a valuable resource, regulating its ownership is essential to avoid a scenario where a small elite controls significant aspects of society. Unchecked data ownership could lead to increased inequality and power imbalances.
Answer: Regulating data ownership is crucial to ensure a fair distribution of power and resources. Without proper regulations, those who control vast amounts of data may exploit it for their advantage, consolidating power and contributing to societal disparities.
If data becomes concentrated in too few hands – humankind will split into different species. First, what does this mean? Second, do you agree with this idea? Explain your answer.
This implies that if a small group monopolizes crucial data, they could influence human evolution and capabilities, potentially leading to significant variations between different human groups.
Answer: The idea is speculative, and agreement depends on one's assessment of the potential impact of concentrated data ownership. While data can influence societal structures, whether it could lead to the actual divergence of human species is a complex and uncertain scenario.
Transferring authority from humans to algorithms, including the authority to choose and buy things. Is this a danger? Explain your answer.
Harari raises concerns about the potential dangers associated with transferring decision-making authority from humans to algorithms. This shift could lead to a loss of human autonomy and agency, impacting various aspects of life, including choices and purchases.
Answer: The potential danger lies in the risk of algorithms making decisions that may not align with human values or ethical considerations. Striking a balance between technological advancements and preserving human agency is crucial to mitigate such risks.
As more and more data flows from your body and brain to the smart machines via biometric sensors, it will become easy for corporations and government agencies to know you, manipulate you, and make decisions on your behalf. Do you agree? Explain your answer?
This statement suggests that the increasing collection of personal data, especially through biometric sensors, may empower external entities such as corporations and governments to gain deep insights, manipulate individuals, and potentially make decisions on their behalf.
Answer: Agreement or disagreement depends on one's assessment of the risks and benefits associated with the increasing integration of technology into personal lives. While data-driven technologies offer conveniences, there are legitimate concerns about privacy, manipulation, and the potential misuse of such information.
Does the data about my DNA, my brain, and my life belong to me, to the government, to a corporation, or to the human collective? What’s your answer? Explain it.
Harari explores the complex issue of data ownership. The answer to this question is subjective and depends on societal norms, legal frameworks, and individual perspectives. Some argue for individual ownership, while others consider a more collective or regulated approach.
Answer: This is a highly debated and evolving issue. Legal frameworks and societal norms play a crucial role in determining data ownership. Striking a balance between individual rights, societal benefits, and ethical considerations is essential in shaping a fair approach to data ownership.
Politicians are like musicians, and the instrument they play on is the human emotional and biochemical system. What does this mean?
Harari draws an analogy between politicians and musicians, suggesting that politicians manipulate human emotions and biochemical responses to influence public opinion and gain support.
Answer: This analogy highlights the persuasive power of politicians in shaping public perceptions. It underscores the importance of understanding the emotional and psychological aspects of political communication and decision-making.
How should the ownership of data be regulated? Gives examples.
Harari doesn't provide a specific blueprint in the book, but regulating data ownership involves establishing legal frameworks that ensure fair, transparent, and ethical use of data. Examples could include:
Data Privacy Laws: Implementing comprehensive data privacy laws to protect individuals' rights.
Transparency Requirements: Requiring organizations to be transparent about data collection and usage practices.
Ethical Guidelines: Developing ethical guidelines for the responsible use of data in research, commerce, and governance.
International Cooperation: Encouraging global cooperation to create standardized regulations for cross-border data sharing and usage.
Striking a balance between protecting individual rights and promoting innovation is crucial in effective data regulation.
What is equality?
Equality refers to the state of being equal in status, rights, and opportunities.
What are traditional ideas in your home community about equality?
This question is subjective and would require knowledge of your specific home community. Harari explores how different cultures and societies have varying perspectives on equality.
Do people in your home community think equality is possible, and if it is, how is that possible?
Again, this depends on the cultural and societal context of your home community. Harari discusses the challenges and possibilities of achieving equality in a globalized world.
"Those Who Own the Data Own the Future." What does this mean?
Harari argues that control over data will be a significant determinant of power and influence in the future. Those who possess and manipulate data will shape the course of human development.
How would Harari argue for more movement towards universal equality?
Harari emphasizes the importance of regulating the ownership of data to prevent the concentration of wealth and power, which could lead to greater equality.
How might those with money, resources, and power set themselves up as even greater elites?
Harari suggests that those controlling data can further consolidate their power, potentially creating a divide between a data-elite and the rest of society.
What is data?
Data refers to information, especially facts or statistics, collected and stored for analysis.
How is data mined and used by corporations and governments?
Data is collected through various means, such as online activities and transactions, and is used to analyze behavior, predict trends, and influence decision-making.
Why will data mining become increasingly widespread?
The growth of technology and the interconnected nature of the world make data mining more accessible and valuable for corporations and governments.
Does the data about my DNA, my brain, and my life belong to me, to the government, to a corporation, or to the human collective? Is this an important question?
Harari argues that the regulation of data ownership is crucial to prevent concentration of power. The question of data ownership is indeed significant in shaping the future of societies.
Is the principle of equality valuable?
Harari acknowledges the value of equality but also explores the challenges in achieving it in a rapidly changing world.
How much do you want fundamental aspects of your identity and existence to be thoroughly known by others?
Harari discusses the trade-offs between privacy and the benefits of sharing personal data for societal progress.
How might the twenty-first century create the most unequal societies in history?
The concentration of data and power in the hands of a few could lead to unprecedented levels of inequality, as discussed by Harari.
Though globalization and the Internet bridge the gap between countries, they threaten to enlarge the rift between classes, and just as humankind seems about to achieve global unification, the species itself might divide into different biological castes.
Harari explores the potential dual impact of globalization, bridging gaps between countries while potentially creating new divisions within societies based on access to technology and resources.
Property is a prerequisite for long-term inequality. Why?
Harari suggests that ownership of property contributes to the accumulation of wealth and the perpetuation of inequality over generations.
Following the Agricultural Revolution, why did property multiply?
The Agricultural Revolution enabled people to settle and cultivate land, leading to the ownership of property, which in turn contributed to the multiplication of wealth.
As humans gained ownership of land, animals, plants, and tools, why did rigid hierarchical societies emerge?
Ownership of resources led to the concentration of power in the hands of a few, resulting in the emergence of hierarchical societies.
Inequality is natural and divinely ordained. Comment.
Harari explores different historical perspectives on inequality, noting that some societies justified inequality as a natural or divine order.
Hierarchy is the norm and the ideal. Comment.
Harari delves into the historical prevalence of hierarchical structures in societies, examining how they have been perceived as both normal and ideal.
There can be no order without a clear hierarchy between aristocrats and commoners, between men and women, and between parents and children. Comment.
Harari explores the historical association of hierarchy with social order, discussing how various hierarchies were deemed necessary for societal stability.
In the human body, not all members are equal. Comment.
Harari draws an analogy between the human body's hierarchical organization and the argument that societal equality may lead to chaos, presenting different perspectives on this matter.
What is the relationship between equality and the Industrial Revolution?
The Industrial Revolution brought about significant societal changes, impacting notions of equality by shifting economic structures and creating new opportunities and challenges.
Why did governments in democracies and dictatorships invest heavily in the health, education, and welfare of the masses?
Governments sought to address social issues and reduce inequality to maintain stability and secure the support of the population, as discussed by Harari.
Why did the history of the twentieth century revolve around the reduction of inequality between classes, races, and genders?
Harari explores how various movements and developments in the twentieth century aimed to address and reduce societal inequalities on multiple fronts.
What is globalization?
Harari defines globalization as the increasing interconnection of countries and peoples, leading to the integration of economies, cultures, and information on a global scale.
How has globalization benefited large segments of humanity?
Globalization has facilitated the exchange of goods, ideas, and technologies, contributing to economic growth, cultural exchange, and improved standards of living for many.
Why do the richest hundred people in the world own more than the poorest 4 billion?
Harari discusses how economic and political systems can contribute to the concentration of wealth, resulting in a stark disparity between the super-rich and the impoverished.
How might the superrich be able to buy life?
Harari explores the potential for advancements in biotechnology and healthcare to allow the wealthy to extend their lifespans or enhance their biological capabilities.
The rich were not more talented than the poor. Comment. Do you agree?
Harari argues that historical inequalities were often the result of unjust legal and economic systems rather than inherent differences in talent. Agreeing or disagreeing would depend on one's perspective.
Once a real gap in ability opens between the rich and the poor, why might it become almost impossible to close?
Harari suggests that if there is a significant gap in access to resources and opportunities, it becomes challenging for the less privileged to catch up, perpetuating inequality.
What is ‘speciation’?
Speciation refers to the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise, potentially leading to distinct groups with different characteristics.
Will the separation of humans into different biological castes and different species occur? First, explain what this means then answer the question.
Harari speculates about the potential future divergence of humans into different biological categories based on technological
Operation Systems have a limit on how much RAM they can use. For
example, most versions of Windows on a PC, including XP, Vista, Wins 7
and all 32 bit versions of Wins 8, have a maximum limit of 4GB of Ram.
Wins 8 (64 bit) has 128GB limit. Wins 8 Professional (64 bit)
and Enterprise (64 bit) have limit of 512GB. If you install anything above
the limit of your operating system, the computer won't know what to do
Sarà Com'è m'è pizza Perchè Dì dov'è ch'è quell'è là
Quì e là là gattino dov'è c'è un l'ho che m'è t'è
Sì più bicicletta l'è là dov'è All'ì c'è un ov'è ch'è quell'è
Nell'è cavallo là là là dov'è là là
Nel là radio lì pì andiamò amò Canapè nell'ov'è l'è là andrà
T'è musica là giù pì Piuù c'è ch'è M'è sì là là là sì
Sì più vino l'è là dov'è All'ì c'è un ov'è ch'è quell'è
Quì e là sole dov'è c'è un l'ho che m'è t'è
Nel là nuvola lì pì andiamò amò Canapè nell'ov'è l'è là andrà
Nel là oceano lì pì andiamò amò Canapè nell'ov'è l'è là andrà
Sì più montagna l'è là dov'è All'ì c'è un ov'è ch'è quell'è
Sarà lampadina m'è nell'è Perchè Dì dov'è ch'è quell'è là
T'è computer là giù pì Piuù c'è ch'è M'è sì là là là sì
Nel là giardino lì pì andiamò amò Canapè nell'ov'è l'è là andrà
Quì e là libro dov'è c'è un l'ho che m'è t'è
Nel là quadro lì pì andiamò amò Canapè nell'ov'è l'è là andrà
Sì più televisione l'è là dov'è All'ì c'è un ov'è ch'è quell'è
T'è cappello là giù pì Piuù c'è ch'è M'è sì là là là sì
Sarà telefono m'è nell'è Perchè Dì dov'è ch'è quell'è là
Nel là cane lì pì andiamò amò Canapè nell'ov'è l'è là andrà
Who owns the data?
If we want to prevent the concentration of all wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, the key is to regulate the ownership of data. In ancient times land was the most important asset in the world, politics was a struggle to control land, and if too much land became concentrated in too few hands – society split into aristocrats and commoners. In the modern era machines and factories became more important than land, and political struggles focused on controlling these vital means of production. If too many of the machines became concentrated in too few hands – society split into capitalists and proletarians. In the twenty-first century, however, data will eclipse both land and machinery as the most important asset, and politics will be a struggle to control the flow of data. If data becomes concentrated in too few hands – humankind will split into different species.
The race to obtain the data is already on, headed by data-giants such as Google, Facebook, Baidu and Tencent. So far, many of these giants seem to have adopted the business model of ‘attention merchants’.2 They capture our attention by providing us with free information, services and entertainment, and they then resell our attention to advertisers. Yet the data-giants probably aim far higher than any previous attention merchant. Their true business isn’t to sell advertisements at all. Rather, by capturing our attention they manage to accumulate immense amounts of data about us, which is worth more than any advertising revenue. We aren’t their customers – we are their product.
In the medium term, this data hoard opens a path to a radically different business model whose first victim will be the advertising industry itself. The new model is based on transferring authority from humans to algorithms, including the authority to choose and buy things. Once algorithms choose and buy things for us, the traditional advertising industry will go bust. Consider Google. Google wants to reach a point where we can ask it anything, and get the best answer in the world. What will happen once we can ask Google, ‘Hi Google, based on everything you know about cars, and based on everything you know about me (including my needs, my habits, my views on global warming, and even my opinions about Middle Eastern politics) – what is the best car for me?’ If Google can give us a good answer to that, and if we learn by experience to trust Google’s wisdom instead of our own easily manipulated feelings, what could possibly be the use of car advertisements?3
In the longer term, by bringing together enough data and enough computing power, the data-giants could hack the deepest secrets of life, and then use this knowledge not just to make choices for us or manipulate us, but also to re- engineer organic life and to create inorganic life forms. Selling advertisements may be necessary to sustain the giants in the short term, but they often evaluate apps, products, and companies according to the data they harvest rather than according to the money they generate. A popular app may lack a business model and may even lose money in the short term, but as long as it sucks data, it could be worth billions.4 Even if you don’t know how to cash in on the data today, it is worth having it because it might hold the key to controlling and shaping life in the future. I don’t know for certain that the data-giants explicitly think about it in such terms, but their actions indicate that they value the accumulation of data more than mere dollars and cents.
Ordinary humans will find it very difficult to resist this process. At present, people are happy to give away their most valuable asset – their personal data – in exchange for free email services and funny cat videos. It is a bit like African and Native American tribes who unwittingly sold entire countries to European imperialists in exchange for colorful beads and cheap trinkets. If, later, ordinary people decide to try and block the flow of data, they might find it increasingly difficult, especially as they might come to rely on the network for all their decisions, and even for their healthcare and physical survival.
Humans and machines might merge so completely that humans will not be able to survive at all if they are disconnected from the network. They will be connected from the womb, and if later in life you choose to disconnect, insurance agencies might refuse to insure you, employers might refuse to employ you, and healthcare services might refuse to take care of you. In the big battle between health and privacy, health is likely to win hands down.
As more and more data flows from your body and brain to the smart machines via the biometric sensors, it will become easy for corporations and government agencies to know you, manipulate you, and make decisions on your behalf. Even more importantly, they could decipher the deep mechanisms of all bodies and brains, and thereby gain the power to engineer life. If we want to prevent a small elite from monopolising such godlike powers, and if we want to prevent humankind from splitting into biological castes, the key question is: who owns the data? Does the data about my DNA, my brain and my life belong to me, to the government, to a corporation, or to the human collective?
Mandating governments to nationalize the data will probably curb the power of big corporations, but it may also result in creepy digital dictatorships. Politicians are a bit like musicians, and the instrument they play on is the human emotional and biochemical system. They give a speech – and there is a wave of fear in the country. They tweet – and there is an explosion of hatred. I don’t think we should give these musicians a more sophisticated instrument to play on. Once politicians can press our emotional buttons directly, generating anxiety, hatred, joy and boredom at will, politics will become a mere emotional circus. As much as we should fear the power of big corporations, history suggests that we are not necessarily better off in the hands of over-mighty governments. As of March 2018, I would prefer to give my data to Mark Zuckerberg than to Vladimir Putin (though the Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed that perhaps there isn’t much of a choice here, as any data entrusted to Zuckerberg may well find its way to Putin).
Private ownership of one’s own data may sound more attractive than either of these options, but it is unclear what it actually means. We have had thousands of years of experience in regulating the ownership of land. We know how to build a fence around a field, place a guard at the gate, and control who can go in. Over the past two centuries we have become extremely sophisticated in regulating the ownership of industry – thus today I can own a piece of General Motors and a bit of Toyota by buying their shares. But we don’t have much experience in regulating the ownership of data, which is inherently a far more difficult task, because unlike land and machines, data is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, it can move at the speed of light, and you can create as many copies of it as you want.
So we had better call upon our lawyers, politicians, philosophers, and even poets to turn their attention to this conundrum: how do you regulate the ownership of data? This may well be the most important political question of our era. If we cannot answer this question soon, our sociopolitical system might collapse. People are already sensing the coming cataclysm. Perhaps this is why citizens all over the world are losing faith in the liberal story, which just a decade ago seemed irresistible.
How, then, do we go forward from here, and how do we cope with the immense challenges of the biotech and infotech revolutions? Perhaps the very same scientists and entrepreneurs who disrupted the world in the first place could engineer some technological solution. For example, might networked algorithms form the scaffolding for a global human community that could collectively own all the data and oversee the future development of life? As global inequality rises and social tensions increase around the world, perhaps Mark Zuckerberg could call upon his 2 billion friends to join forces and do something together?
The patient is a xx-year-old black male undergoing follow-up evaluation for back and left anterior thigh pain. He developed back and leg pain several years ago, undergoing a posterior lumbar interbody fusion. He was re-evaluated, reporting resolution of his radicular pain and improvement in his back pain. He subsequently applied for a social security disability status. He indicates that approximately a year and half ago, he signed up for a part-time job, which required heavy lifting, which further aggravated his back pain. He has also noted left anterior thigh pain in the past year. He has been managed through local pain clinic with injections, the last of which was 2 months ago, which did not improve his symptoms.