Lawn and garden - 28 December 2021

We have bird feeders out around the house, partially for our entertainment but also for the cats.  The suet feeders get the attention of "larger" birds and the cats while the hummingbird feeders attract hummingbirds and the people.  In the past, we have had problems with squirrels who seem to think the feeders are for them.  After a few years of battle, the squirrels have largely given up.  A "witch's hat" protects the suet feeder, an anti-squirrel cage protected another feeder, and we have switched to shuttered anti-squirrel feeders for the seed feeders.  The squirrel-cage approach was effective on keeping out the common gray squirrels but it also blocked the medium and larger birds; the cage did not block the native red squirrels (smaller than their gray cousins) and it seemed to confuse a lot of birds who clung to the outside, unable to solve the riddle of entry.  In the end, we abandoned the cage in favor of shuttered feeders.

the shuttered feeders have an internal spring.  For light creatures like the birds, the weight is not enough to counter the spring, but when a squirrel gets on the feeder, their weight squashes the spring and that closes the shutters so that food is no longer accessible.  It takes a couple days of failed attempts, but the squirrels eventually give up.  The area under the feeder is kept clean because we buy the shelled seed.  there is some spillage onto the ground, but birds (and the odd squirrel) patrol the ground under the feeder and keep the area clean.  Occasionally a neighbor will warn that feeding birds attracts rats, but there is no evidence of this.

the suet feeder one time attracted a rather large critter.  A bear entered our suburban backyard and trashed the suet feeder in a successful attempt to eat the suet within.  We never did find the suet feeder.  I went out the next day and discovered a hole in the cedar fence.  I patched the hole with some scrap wood and we have since replaced the fence, so I expect our ursine friends will take the easy route and search for easy pickings among the neighborhood rather than out backyard.  Any neighbor concerned enough can put up their own fence.

To counter the squirrels and the bear, we have switched to hot-pepper suet.  It turns out that birds cannot taste capsaicin, the active ingredient in hot peppers, but the mammals can.  A mouthful of hot-pepper suet is nothing to a bird, but it will be long remembered by a mammal.

In an unusual turn, the nectar in the hummingbird feeders froze yesterday.  A winter storm had brought 20-something-degree temperatures to the area and remained overnight, so be brought in the feeders overnight to thaw them.  I redeployed them this morning and the hummers have been battling over the feeders all day.  An "alpha" hummer seems to own the feeder and they chase off interlopers all day, feeding occasionally.  It is supposed to get down to 24F tonight, so we will bring them in again to redeploy tomorrow.

Web3 derives from Web2 and a screed on Bitcoin and Ethereum - 28 December 2021

I have recently read a couple news articles and position papers about the emergence of Web3.  The advocates claim is the fulfillment of the original promise of an open and egalitarian Internet.  I am sure some of the advocates are pure-of-heart and believe this, but the bulk of the Web3 wave is driven by those seeking power (influence) and money, especially money.  Let us peel the smelly onion that is Web3.

If we roll back the clock to the original web, what some call Web 1.0 in retrospect, we can look at the basic technologies.  Let us skip the original World Wide Web or Internet - WebZero - because it was limited to military, academics, and a few commercial researchers.  The main part of the world did not become aware of the web or the Internet until around 1995 or so.  Bill Gates wrote his famous "internet everywhere" memo about that time, and injected the web technologies into Win95 where the world discovered "the web".  Wired Magazine places the Bill Gates memo on 26 May 1995 - see this link to Bill Gates memo.  At the time, there were two kinds of connections to the newly visible web; at a major corporation, there was high-speed internet (perhaps a megabit/second or so) and from home there was dial-up at speeds from 1200-56Kbit/sec.  For home users, the connection was provided by AOL or the like for a monthly fee and used the telephone system.  I think the three main applications (or uses) of the web were e-mail, BBS systems, and limited web browsing, all text based with very limited graphics.  The graphics were so limited, that even GIFs were rare, and a 1 megapixel photo was a luxury.  I will ignore porn, the "killer app" that drives so many advances in technology.  Even the limited gaming was text based.  Not sure about that?  Does this ring a bell?  “You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.” Zork.  In the midst of all this technological glory came a new application that would fund major expansions of the web.  In summary, Web 1.0 brought us spam. 

We now proceed to examine Web 2.0.

The demand for a "more immersive experience" drove the expansion of e-mail, BBS, the nascent Web, porn, and primitive gaming, and this was often driven by spam.  The emergence of GIFs, animated GIFs (amazing!), higher-quality images with more colors (hint: porn), and multi-player gaming drove an increasing demand for web services and capacity.  High-speed internet became available in more homes (but still not fast enough for gamers who held game nights that spawned tech wizards fluent in routers and Ethernet).  In a serendipitous alignment, these technologies allowed for full-on advertising.  Older players like AOL and new players like Google and Yahoo could collect data on users to feed them advertisements targeted to their interests.  Amazon came along and brought this to a fine art with the original patents on recommendations and collecting reviews to share with other customers.  Where companies used to pay Madison Avenue to create stories about obviously wonderful products, Amazon shared recommendations and reviews are simply advertising supplied by the users instead of Madison Avenue.  Amazon could pay a few reviewers to create a few reviews that would generate buzz, but they could collect hundreds of volunteer reviewers and assemble their submissions into gigantic, endless reviews that would generate massive buzz.  All this cost Amazon a few cents of computing and storage to collect and present the data, and a few employees to get the ball started rolling.  This is now ubiquitous in any on-line retail outlet, and pretty common on manufacturers' sites with consumer products.   Along the way, images and videos got better in Web 2.0, and while that helped consumers, it helped  the sellers sell better.  Ultimately, Apple turned it into the music streaming business (big revenue), YouTube turned it into a video-streaming business (funded by advertising), and Netflix turned it into movie-streaming (funded by subscription fees).  Google search and GMAIL are funded by advertiser fees as are Facebook and Twitter.  FAANG and all the vampires driven by advertising brought to use by Web 2.0.   

We now welcome Web3.

As with all self-described disruptions, there must be some icon-bashing, and so the numbering changes:  we lose the space and the "0" to give the radical-looking "Web3" moniker.  We are early in the transition to post-Web 2.0 technologies, but the leading contenders seem to be bitcoin (in the general sense, although Bitcoin is the premier example) and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), both built on the blockchain technology.   Bitcoin (lower-case) has become so popular that there are hundreds, if not thousands of bitcoin types.  

NFTs are still struggling to emerge, but there are a handful of NFT exchanges (like auction houses more than anything).  (As a foreshadow, I wrote recently that one can tell the NFT business is rotten because a Trump has entered the business; Melania, to be specific, but it would not surprise me if Ivanka, Jared, Don, Don Jr., and Eric were to shortly issue NFTs; I am not sure that Baron or Tiffany are allowed to participate with the big scammers in the family business entering first).  To finish up quickly on NFTs, there are no reputable participants and none of the active participants can state any coherent value or benefit to NFTs; an NFT is a con by definition, so let us return to the fabled bitcoin marketplace.  

The original Bitcoin was invented or described by someone with the name Natoshi Sakamoto, but no one knows who this is and no one has come forward with a credible claim to be this inventor who holds large amounts of the earliest Bitcoins.  These original Bitcoins are presently worth millions of dollars (USD).  Although any reasonable (living) person would come forward with a demonstrable, valid claim and own that money, no one has, so let us put the identify question aside for the moment and turn to the technology that underpins bitcoin.  

There are lots of people in the world who think bitcoin is pretty cool and have invested their money in Bitcoin.  there are other people who think the idea is cool, so cool that they have created new bitcoin types with different attributes.  One of the most famous alternative bitcoin types is called Dogecoin, named after an Internet meme (the Doge, a dog) and created originally as a parody of Bitcoin - which promptly made it a desired type of bitcoin now worth real money.  (See "icon bashing" mentioned earlier - must be an iconoclast to be a distrupter).  A particular problem with Bitcoin (original) is that it does not scale -  transactions in Bitcoin using the proverbial blockchain ledger are costing about $5, which makes many transactions too expansive (buy a gallon of milk and it costs more to pay for the payment than for the milk, itself).  This is a serious problem for a "currency".  The shopkeeper does not charge you $5 every time you buy something at the store, and Bitcoin looks pretty expensive such that  there are now subsidiary "bitcoin" types that have a lower transaction costs and are bundled into larger Bitcoin transactions.  The other problem is that Bitcoin transactions are slow - the Bitcoin blockchain can handle something like 10 transactions per second across the entire world.  Ten transactions/second shared across seven billion people is, well, a long wait.  This is not a good sign for the adoption of Bitcoin. 

After Dogecoin, another alternative coin is Ethereum.  Like Bitcoin, Ethereum is based on a block-chain technology but it uses something Proof Of Stake (POS) rather than Bitcoin's Proof Of Work (POW), and Ethereum has the ability to attach a "smart contract" to a coin or a transaction.  According to the Coinbase website, "Smart contracts, like regular paper contracts, establish the terms of an arrangement between parties. But unlike an old-fashioned contract, smart contracts automatically execute when the terms are met without the need for either participating party to know who is on the other side of the deal — and without the need for any kind of intermediary."  While many people consider "smart contracts" to be a major advance of technology, I view them as a pending disaster, but let us do a brief digression on POS and POW.  I must confess that I love the irony of Bitcoin being closely associated with "POS", but where was I?  Back to Proof Of Work.  To make a long story short, POW takes a tedious computing problem and shares it with anyone who wants to try to solve it.  These potential solvers are called "miners".  The miners race to find a solution to the tedious problem and the first one to find a solution reports the solution.  If all the other miners agree the solution is correct, that first miner gets a prize - a newly created ("minted") Bitcoin.  The tedious problem is useless - it is difficult to solve, true, but the solution is the answer to a question that no one will ever ask.  There are miners out in the world who have built specialized supercomputers that use vast amounts of electricity to "mine" the Bitcoin tokens (various words are used: bitcoin, coin, and token are common phrases).  This is POW - to solve a tedious, useless math problem.  Proof of Stake, or POS, recognizes this waste of energy and apportions winnings (new Ethereum coins) to anyone who can show they have a lot of Ethereum coins already and are willing to do the tedious calculation.  The difference is that one Stakeholder does the useless computation instead of all the miners doing similar, useless computations at the same time in a race.  In short, POS declares that only the rich can be miners; the rich get richer.  That screams "con" to me, but let us return to the "smart contracts".

The idea of a "smart contract" is appealing.  One writes up a great contract that encodes all the important criteria and conditions into the contract - in other words, one writes a program that is to be run in association with the Ethereum coin.  This removes all the overhead of people handling the transaction and places it in a piece of programming code; the disrupters "disintermediate" all those unnecessary business people, bankers, and lawyers who would otherwise gum up the works.  But this is based on a curious assumption, the assumption that someone, somewhere can write a  program that can handle all possible circumstances and resolve all possible errors, including circumstances and errors that have not yet been encountered or imagined, then it assumes that program can be written perfectly to capture the intent and spirit of every thought of both parties to the contract.  We know this is not possible for two obvious reasons.  First, we know programs are littered with errors.  Anyone who has ever had to "restart, reboot, reinstall" knows that software is fallible.  Some will argue that software got people to the moon, but the programmers at NASA spent years writing and laboriously checking that code - only to have it fail at the last minute so that Neil Armstrong had to turn off the computer so that he could land the LEM safely (roughly summarized).  Even if the resulting software were perfect, no one wants to wait years and spend millions of dollars for a "smart contract".  The other assumption is that those "unnecessary business people, bankers, and lawyers" are, in fact, unnecessary.  Anyone who has dealt with a bureaucracy knows that they routinely fail to operate correctly.  I can think of dozens of times that I have had to call the bank, the credit card company, the insurance company, the airline, the hotel company, or the government to get a problem resolved by a person instead of a website or an automated calling system.  Each of those was a contract with governing terms and conditions and something went wrong such that the automated systems could not resolve the problem.  Placing all that complexity into "smart contract" software invites disaster and problems, and if the "smart contract" runs automatically with no chance of human override, then the consumers will need lawyers and judges to sort out the problems.  Large companies pay talented lawyers to write air-tight contracts, but we read the news about company-suing-company to resolve some million-dollar issue that the contract did not cover.  Smart contracts?  No thank you.

Finally, let us ask what bitcoin transactions are used for.  the most common examples are to purchase porn, to purchase illegal products such as guns and drugs, and to evade tax and financial laws. Someone asserted that most of the NFT purchases were done in bitcoin so that bitcoin could be converted out of bitcoin for investment diversification; this is almost a form of money laundering.  In any event, when you take the transaction costs into account, bitcoin has no identifiable purpose that might be legitimate.

Summarizing, if Web3 is the grand world of bitcoin and NFTs, then Web3 brings only fraud and evasion.

I am left only with the conclusion that Web3 is something to be avoided and it needs government intervention and regulation.

     

People want to believe: NFT fraud Melania style - 16 December 2021

And if you still were not sure that NFTs are a scam, the final bit of evidence has been announced.  Melania Trump, gold-digger and person who truly does not care about you, has announced an NFT.  If you think the gold-digger attribute is too cruel, the announcement says that a "portion of the proceeds will 'assist children aging out of the foster care system'" -- a PORTION.  You can be sure that the other portion will assist Melania.  

If you were unsure about NFTs, thinking that there might be some residual value in the concept, you can now rest assured that the lowest of the low have entered the ring and that all honesty has fled.  Interested parties may now line up to be fleeced.

Full details via CNN -

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/16/politics/melania-trump-nft/index.html

 

(c) By Regine MahauxWeaver, Hilary (3 April 2017). Here's What You Should Know About Melania Trump's Official First Lady Portrait. Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 7 April 2017. "[O]n Monday[,] . . . the White House released [Melania Trump's] first official portrait, which was taken by Belgian photographer Regine Mahaux."Laurent, Olivier (4 April 2017). The Story Behind Melania Trump's Official Portrait. Time. Archived from the original on 7 April 2017. - whitehouse.gov/administration/first-lady-melania-trump (page) (archived)whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/flotus.png (direct link) (archived)whitehouse.gov/copyright (license) (archived), CC BY 3.0 us, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=57696382

People want to believe, NFT fraud edition - 13 December 2021

The timing of this tweet is perfect. NFTs are frauds. NFT Fraud is a thing. Self-parody is real.

https://twitter.com/nfttheft/status/1469445764275339265?s=21

People want to believe, NFT edition - 13 December 2021

There is a message here, and it is both uplifting and depressing.

 I have been reading about NFTs for months and still fail to succumb to the allure.  I just watched a video, courtesy of BoingBoing, that is located here -  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXaYUEspyG8

and as referenced from BoingBoing -

https://boingboing.net/2021/12/13/what-is-the-true-nature-of-the-nft-bubble.html

The video, named "How Celebrities are Making MILLIONS with Selling JPG’s (NFT’s)" [sic], takes seventeen minutes to explain, first, that NFTs are a bubble and, second, that NFTs are not a scam.  I will grant that the first ten minutes are correct: NFTs are a bubble.  I take issue with the second part: NFTs are a scam.

The best argument for the long-term validity of NFTs is that they provide some sort of a guarantee that one possesses an original.  This is the non-fungible aspect.  The presenter notes that it is trivial to make a perfect copy of a digital original;  he somehow completely glosses over this key fact when comparing NFTs to conventional works of art.  He argues that, somehow, an authenticated work of art by Picasso, Rothko, Rembrandt, or Banksy is equivalent to an NFT.  This is either self-deceiving or disingenuous.  The unacknowledged fault in this argument is that the conventional work of art is unique.  It cannot be duplicated or reproduced and it exists in exactly one place.  It is true that there is a large business, science, and art for the authentication of art works, and it is true that this sometimes has its failures, but it generally works to support the uniqueness and origin of a particular piece of art.  For NFTs, there is no such thing.  A particular NFT, itself, certifies to the uniqueness of a collection of bits, but those bits can be copied perfectly with no way to determine the original.  Further, those exact bits can "exist" in many places (hundreds, thousands, millions of URLs) and they can be moved to a new location trivially - with or without leaving a copy behind.  If the Mona Lisa is removed from the Louvre, there is no copy left behind, perfect or otherwise.  Further, if an artist can make money from the resale of the art (likely a good thing), it seems likely that the artist (or agent) can make another NFT.  Nothing makes the second NFT more valuable than the first.  One can argue that the first NFT is a "first edition" and that brings value.  However, this discussion again calls the basic question - what is the value of an NFT?  

The presenter argues that an NFT has the same exclusiveness as owning a Ferrari or an exotic watch.  The Ferrari has no value on city streets as 35 remains the speed limit for all cars; the watch does not keep better time than the cheap digital watch.  Thus the Ferrari and watch bring status because of exclusivity and expense.  But a fancy car or watch is difficult to make - they are not mass produced using a "copy" command on a cheap PC.  They are not trivially distributed on cheap USB memory sticks.  So if you are the kind of person who is impressed with logos imprinted on leather or carved into steel watches, then maybe an NFT is for you.  But the Ferrari will still be putt-putting along at 35 and will eventually become scrap metal, so enjoy it while you can.  Ferrari will make more cars next year while Rembrandt will remain dead.  The exclusiveness analogy fails.

The presenter mentions in passing that Bitcoin whales are buying NFTs to evade taxes on BTC gains.  The whale converts capital gains on the BTC investment (wager) into the value of an NFT.  Well, yes, that works now.  But eventually the whale will want to convert that NFT into cash to buy their yacht or their pizza, so the NFT will collapse into an cap gain at that point and taxes will be due.  Of the NFT market will collapse and the cap gains will evaporate.  Ultimately, this practice is a statement that the long-term promise of the Bitcoin world is not good (a purchase of NFTs signal low confidence in BTC; if confidence in BTC was high, investments would remain in BTC).  This also means that the world of NFTs is rather like the island of dry cleaners that prospers because everyone takes in each others' laundry.  That will not last long.

To summarize the depressing part of the NFT story, NFTs represent people who are seeking something for nothing.  They seek huge profits at the expense of others with no effort from themselves.  Think about that NFT booster - they add nothing to the value proposition of NFTs.  They are in a pump-and-dump model with the hope that they will get out before the crash caused by the dump.  Which NFT whale will start dumping first?

I said at the start that the moral here was both depressing and uplifting.  I have dwelt on the depressing bit.  The uplifting bit is that many people remain optimistic.  Now that I see that written, it feels inadequate.  NFTs are depressing and a lot of innocent people will lose money.

Lost Mail and Checking, 8 December 2021

In yesterday's mail, I got a repeat bill, a "late" bill.  I checked my records and I had sent a check a month ago (11 Nov), but the vendor has not received my payment as of about 5 December.  I can understand why he might be a little grouchy.  I checked my records, and all the other checks written shortly before and after had cleared the bank, so it looks like Ol' Man Dejoy, the Postmaster, has Done It Again.  After screwing up the USPS, he is now losing mail.  I could pay a few bucks to issue a stop-payment on the lost check, but I am too cheap.   Instead I have sent a replacement check and will be watching should the errant check wander in. 

This is one of the few bills I pay by check.  As this service is ending, I think I have two left that are not in autopay mode.  This gives me a chance to think about checking.  We used to write 10-20 checks a month.  There use to be fleets of small airplanes that would collect and deliver bags of checks to smaller banks in the rural towns.  I used to order checks by the box-full and go through several hundred a year.  And I used to deposit checks received from others.  All that is now gone, or severely reduced.  Of the remaining two checks a month, both could go on autopay, and maybe I should arrange that this afternoon.  There will be the occasional check for donations or large amounts (e.g., buying a new furnace), but I would be down to 10 a year from hundreds a year.  

I could pay the remainder by credit card.  One of the things that gives me pause is that the credit card companies take a cut.  I could have paid the furnace deposit by credit card, but they would have imposed a 3% fee.  I notice in my contributions that the "bank" is taking a fee on the order of 3%, and on the smaller amounts, the "bank" usually sets a floor amount for the minimum fee - often 50 or 75 cents.  When a goup of us would go to lunch and split the check, the bank would get four or five of the 75 cent fees for the one lunch ticket.  That is $3-4 that the restaurant will not get.  There is a similar story at the weekly farmers' market where the little guy, the farmer, loses a buck or so on the deal when you pay by credit card.  With the advent of COVID, everyone avoided the handling of cash and moved quickly to the credit transaction.  In some cases, the farmer took the hit and in other cases, the cost of vegetables went up so that the bankers could collect their fees.  

Instead of turning into a rant, let me simply point out that we should go back to cash for those small transactions.  The bankers are driving much nicer cars than the poor farmers and restauranteurs.  

Working with Medicare and Social Security: Follow-up Follow-up, 7 December 2021

I suppose this is the way things normally happen in life.  Once you buy a car, you suddenly routinely see them on the road when you have never noticed them before.  In this case, I contacted my U.S. Representative's office to ask them to inquire at the Social Security Administration (SSA) about the revision to dates of my eligibility for Medicare.   I completed some confirmation forms for them (approval to use my personal information) and then went out to get the mail.  

Sure enough, that was the day that the confirmation mail arrived from SSA to grant my eligibility for Medicare.  I promptly called the Rep's office to explain and cancel my request.  The office is working remotely, so the interactions are through voicemail and email.  One does not actually talk to anyone, but I tried to be clear in my message (both times).

Now to convince everyone that I am on the "special" enrollment schedule and I am not late for the annual enrollment schedule that ended yesterday (7 Dec).  I got the confirming mail after the close of business, thus I was unable to respond in time to meet the deadline, anyway.

The Mobile Phone of 2031 - 6 December 2021

Twenty years ago, a flip-phone was considered the peak of technology for mobile phones.  Nokia dominated the industry.  Voice and text were the dominant applications (we did not use the phrase at the time) - some limited web browsing was likely possible, but it was really, really crappy.  An integrated camera might be one megapixel on a high-end phone, maybe as poor as  640x480 on a typical phone.  I am not looking at references but that is probably a reasonable summary.   In a revolutionary move, the iPhone was introduced by Apple in 2007 (announced in January, units delivered to US customers on 29 June and then worldwide in 2008).  Since then, a touch screen and ability to run general applications has been the backbone of the mobile phone.  An article today asks where the mobile phone will be in 10 years.

https://gizmodo.com/what-will-smartphones-be-like-in-10-years-1848138666

I thought I would answer this question.  I have been thinking about this for the last 5-6 years and have some predictions.  Most of the predictions I have seen are along the lines of "more of the same" - more bits and colors on the screens, longer battery life, faster CPUs and applications.  I think these answer the wrong question.  I think we need to turn the question around and ask what problems are being solved by a smartphone-like device.

A smartphone is not just a phone: it is a computer.  Therefore it has storage, compute, input, and output.  In today's form, we call these FLASH, CPU, keyboard & voice, and screen & speakers.  But that is a narrow definition.  As Scott McNealy and SUN Microsystems have said, the network is the computer.  Applying this thought, the smartphone is the connection to a larger world, a network of storage, computers, input devices, and output devices.  We used to store music but now we stream it; the storage is in the cloud.  We used to run apps directly on the phone, but now there is a distrubuted model (think about how Siri, Alexa, Maps, and other apps work).  We are surrounded by inputs such as location, sounds, text/typing, and gestures.  We consume output in the form of displays and spoken prompts ("recalculating...").  We are limited by power as seen by the eternal complaints about limited batteries and carrying auxilliary batteries to "make it through the day".  These are all limitations of the small form-factor of the current smartphone.  We are also facing new demands and applications such as payment through the smartphone (Apple Pay, Google Pay, Venmo).  And we are starting to see the smartphone as a means of identity - you can open your front door or start you car with your phone; this exposes security concerns to be solved.

If we combine all these things, we can get a clearer idea of where smartphones are going.  Ultimately, they will be little radios: to talk to the cloud storage and compute; to the cellular network for text, voice, and data;  to connect to the input and output devices around us (Bluetooth, WiFi, others); and to provide credentials for purchase or access.  These radios will have enough compute capability to work with the cloud for larger storage and compute problems; some local storage will be available for caching, but only part of the vast data resources - your top-100 playlist may be on the device, but your total collection will remain in the cloud, perhaps in the form of a subscription.  Similarly, your smartphone will do just enough computation to get you thru day-to-day, and bigger compute will be in the cloud - this is a form of "compute caching".  Computation and storage are useless if they cannot connect to the user, so we get to the input-output devices.

I am surrounded by screens.  I have a 16-inch screen on my laptop, a 30-inch screen on my workstation, a 60-inch screen in my living room.  when I get in my car, I have another screen.  When I get on an airplane, I have yet another screen.  Cabs in Japan have screens, so it is nothing to add them to taxis and Uber cars in the US.  None of these require power from  my device - they have their own power sources.  My smartphone only needs to be able to connect - wirelessly, I presume.  Screens are so cheap that they will appear in kitches, bedrooms, airport waiting rooms, dental waiting rooms, and -- everywhere, and all of them with their own power sources outside my smartphone.  Technology like ChromeCAST and AirPlay show that screens outside my smartphone can be drawn into service.  Even you glasses can be used.  Input devies are even easier - for $100, I can get a device that projects a keyboard on any flat surface to allow me to type.  Some evolution of this idea will allow tablet and keyboard style input.  But voice and gestures will be even more common than today's Siri, Alexa, and Hey Google.

Security is the next big problem to solve.  all of these wireless connections (cloud, screen, Bluetooth, Wifi) are openings for attacks.  But the smartphone device can be programmed to carry my secret keys and allow secure communications.  this is not a solved problem, but the proliferation of VPNs and two-factor verification give a sense of where this is going.   Note also that payment systems systems depend on this being solved, or your bank account will be eternaly zero.  Finally, the proliferation of COVID vaccination status shows that identity is closely tied to smartphones as the carrier.  This simple example will be expanded to include access to cloud services from subscription feeds to financial transactions in increasingly secure methods.

Camera is the one app I have neglected  Some sort of on-board display seems necessary to make a camera work and a small display can be used for other purposes as well, to display security codes as well as directions and red/yellow/green indicators for whatever purpose. 

In the end, we have a small device - anything from a TicTac box to a deck of cards - with a camera lens, a small display (1-in by 1-in, for example), limited storage and CPU, radios, and a battery.  Everything else will come from outside and be displayed outside.  For most of the day, you will not even take it out of your pocket.

I tried to convince a colleague of this idea when we were walking in Beijing, both there on a business trip about eight years ago - roughly 2006.  He was not buying it; his predictions were wrapped around more-of-the-same (better screens, better batteries, a smartphone to the core).  Therefore, my 10-year prediction may take longer than 2031 to arrive, but I think it inevitable.

--andy

Lawn and Garden - 3 December 2021

It has been a quiet period dominated by lawn and garden work.  

We have seen an increase in bird activity, so the suet and nectar get refilled more frequently.  I am guessing that we went through a migratory phase that has changed the populations.  During the Fall migration, there were lots of seeds available naturally and this seemed to reduce the need for supplemental feeding.  The new Winter populations have settled in, the winter pickings are few, the cold raises the need for food and - voila! - we have hungy birds again.  The hummingbirds are reluctantly sharing the feeders (they were quite territorial in the Summer months) and the suet is savaged by packs of maurading little birds.  

The garden work has mostlly been pruning.  Our Howe Sound cabin has a rose that has been growing at one corner of the cabin since about 1938-40, planted by Susan's grandmother.  This is an original "old rose", a climber that has survived benign neglect and active construction for about 80 years.  In advance of the construction, we were unsure if it would survive, so we took a half-dozen clippings back to our Redmond house.  Several of the cuttings remain in pots, large pots, and several are in the ground.  The grounded roses are very happy.  We did not really know what we were planting, how the cuttings would adjust to their new home, but the last few years have shown them to be taking quite well to the new surroundings.  for the last couple of years, the one by the back deck has grown up onto the (south-facing) roof and the one by the entrance has tried to capture any number of delivery persons.  I pruned both in the past week, completely filling the 96-gallon composting container twice.  The thorns on the old rose are quite effective as deterrents; wicked things.  This makes pruning a challenge.  I have settled on a technique that starts at the edges and prunes inward and downward.  This limits me to smaller cuttings and the work goes slowly.  Once I have removed a good bit of the rose bush (about half), I can come in from the side and this allows me to cut off larger bits.  The composing service is very handy - they use an automated truck to collect the contents of the bin and I can just wave good-bye to the thorns.  The alternative would be to run the rose cuttings through the chipper-shredder, and that would be awful.  The canes going in would be constantly grabbing at fabric and flesh, neither of which is pleasant.  And the service means the rose bits go off to become compost. Win.

I came across a video, now misplaced, that explained a technique for pruning and trellising old roses.  It was an eye-opener.  I have decided to try its technique.  I am now pruning the roses to grow large, healthy canes in a horizontal pattern.  From these will grow smaller canes, reaching vertically, that will carry the rosebuds, creating a wall of roses.  Nice.  We have not had any mildew or pest problems, so these old roses seem quite hardy and the veritcal growth will lead to more sun (mor blossoms) and good ventilation (controlling mildew and pests).  I will need to rebuild the arbor so the roses have something to grow on, but that will be another story.