In the New York Times

It’s been a couple of weeks already, so this is old news in the age of Twitter. But the fact that Simon and Andrea were featured in a New York Times story more than justifies the delayed post.

Robots like Simon are probably decades away from leaving the research lab and heading to people’s homes, but I have no doubt in my mind that it will happen. These kinds of stories give people a taste of what’s to come.

Very cool.

When Collective Intelligence Lets You Down

This morning the WSJ has a great story on gullibility, motivated by the Madoff fraud. The essay is presented from a very unique angle, since the author is both an expert on the topic and a victim of the scam. He indirectly invested 30% of his retirement savings in Madoff’s fund.

One passage really stood out for me:

Very few people possess the knowledge or inclination to perform an in-depth analysis of every investment opportunity they are considering. It is for this reason that we rely on others to help make such decisions.

For the last 10 years, we’ve experienced the usefulness and convenience of collective intelligence in all sorts of ways – Amazon’s recommendation engine quickly comes to mind. However, when it comes to serious financial decisions, maybe it’s not such a good idea to let other’s opinions and behavior dictate your own.

The Walking Desk

A while back I was startled to see an ad for one of those walking desks in the Wall Street Journal (paper edition). “Wow, these things are going mainstream”, I thought.

Instead of being just another passing fad, a creation from an inventive entrepreneur, it was actually inspired by medical research that puts a high value on constant movement throughout the day.

Photo and link thanks to Casey Bisson.

Information Feels Good

Lee Gomes is possibly my favorite writer over at The Wall Street Journal. He’s got more of a tech focus than other writers, so I tend to read his articles more than others.

A while back he reported on a study conducted by neuroscientists at the University of Southern California interested in the evolutionary and biological basis of the human need for information.

The bottom line is that “new and richly interpretable information triggers a chemical reaction that makes us feel good, which in turn causes us to seek out even more of it”. According to researchers, “when you find new information, you get an opioid hit, and we are junkies for those. You might call us ‘infovores.’”

Fascinating research. Definitely explains why I keep refreshing those web sites about Formula 1 every few minutes! That has to stop. Maybe the new Slife 2.0 will help me with this.

Click here for the whole story. Should be on the free side of the fence at the WSJ.