After decades of innovation by computer and internet companies unfettered by government regulation, Americans are enjoying the benefits provided by Big Techbut also contending daily with problems that the industry has ushered in. Even consumers who love their smartphones and Instagram accounts may be concerned about how they siphon up personal data and lure users back with every new alert. While tech platforms help keep people in contact with family and friends, they also rely on opaque algorithms that shape the content we see. Seeing these dynamics, many politicians appear uncertain whether to get cozy with the visionary leaders of Google, Apple, and Facebookor to campaign against the pollution of the American information ecosystem, the amplification of hate speech and harassment, and the striking concentration of market power among a small number of companies.

Emergent technologies have gained far-reaching power over our politics, our economy, and our lives, and no consensus exists on whatif anythingto do about it.

But this isnt a new story. The race between technological disruption and democracy has been playing out in the United States for more than a century and a half. In the 1850s, the U.S. telegraph industry was intensely competitive. Twenty or so companies had laid more than 23,000 miles of wire, and multiple carriers served identical routes. Profits in this new business were low, triggering a period of consolidation that, by the late 1860s, left Western Union as the dominant provider of long-distance telegraph service. Despite some tentative early steps by the federal government to constrain Western Unions power, the companys monopoly lasted for nearly 50 years. It charged high prices, discriminated against disfavored customers, and translated its market power into political power by using access to its newswire to shape the behavior of politicians. In other words, a disruptive technology posed a previously unanticipated challenge to the health of our economy and our democracy, and not for the last time.

The history of the technology business in the U.S. reveals a predictable jostling among new technologies, business owners, politicians, and ordinary citizens. The cycle begins when human ingenuity and private capital create business opportunities. New companies proliferate. As the effects ripple across society, the market consolidates, and people begin to perceive negative economic or political consequences. But when democracies try to regulate new technologies or industries, they typically struggle to get a grip on these new problemsand many of the rules that they belatedly adopt soon become outdated as technology relentlessly pushes ahead.

It wasnt until 1910 that the federal government meaningfully confronted Western Union. Congress finally recognized that telegraphys competitive era was over; the cost of building a coast-to-coast network of transmission lines from scratch would scare off any rational competitor. Lawmakers adopted common carrier provisions obliging telegraph and telephone companieswhich economists would now call natural monopoliststo offer their services at a reasonable price to all customers without discrimination. These rules discouraged key players in the transport of goods, people, and information from exploiting their powerful position.

Yet the government struggled to stay on top of new developments. By the 1910s, as telephones fully displaced the telegraph, AT&T achieved a commanding position in the long-distance market by buying up local telephone companies. Only under the threat of antitrust action by the federal government in 1913 did AT&T agree to allow local companies to connect to its long-distance system. Yet AT&Ts profits and market power kept growing. Congress took another two decades to enact the next major regulatory overhaulinvesting a new Federal Communications Commission with the authority to oversee both interstate telephone and radio. It also ensured that local phone companies could access interstate connections and compete as local service providers. Even then, AT&Ts near-monopoly over long-distance phone service persisted until a federal judge broke the company up in the 1980s.

From the July/August 2020 issue: What big tech wants out of the pandemic

After its burst of regulatory zeal during the Progressive era, the federal government mostly went back to its policy hibernation, even as wave after wave of transformative technology arrived. By the 80s and 90s, cable-television services unregulated by the FCC had proliferated and the commercialization of the internet had begun, but the governments regulatory approachmostly designed for the age of Thomas Edison and long-distance telephony in the 1930swas far out of date.

And then came the digital revolution. Hoping to secure American leadership in a wave of technological disruption that promised to change how everyone communicated, worked, and lived, the Clinton administration and Congress deregulated telecom markets and placed emerging internet companies in what was described at the time as a regulatory oasis. The federal government left private companies free to harvest users data as they saw fit, even while maintaining strict legal constraints on the use of data by public agencies. Congress enshrined a hands-off view of tech regulation in multiple laws, including the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which locked in the legal immunity of platforms for the content they host. And after an expensive effort by President Bill Clintons Department of Justice to challenge Microsofts market dominance in desktop computing yielded few tangible results, the U.S. government largely retreated from the business of policing mergers and acquisitions.

In fact, lax oversight of a fast-evolving communications industry may have been the right choice at the time. But only now25 years laterare politicians waking up to the consequences. Congress is flooded with new pieces of legislation, including measures to protect personal data, limit internet platforms power to moderate content, and rein in monopoly power. And state attorneys general have joined forces with the federal government to challenge Big Techs power in the courts.

The response of many tech leaders to the recent upsurge in regulatory zeal has been predictable. Preaching libertarianism, they say government interference will slow innovation or cede technological leadership to China. But regulation is just a loaded word for an important thing: the actions taken by those we elect to transform our shared values into rules that serve the common interest. So when technologists and venture capitalists bemoan the very idea of regulation, they are rejecting the role of democratic institutions in minimizing the potential harms of new technologies and establishing rules of fair play that benefit everyone.

A further barrier to concerted action is a political system that is organized to perpetuate the status quo and, in practice, readily accommodates behind-the-scenes requests by companies and their lobbyists. Furthermore, partisan polarization in Washington makes a shared vision for a far-reaching regulatory overhaul of the tech industry seem highly unlikely.

But even as lawmakers differ on whether to break up Big Tech, as the slogan goes, they should still strive for agreement on addressing some of the most immediate, concrete harms. For example, lawmakers need to rebalance the relationship between users and companies when it comes to control over personal data. It should no longer be acceptable for companies to bury their plans for our personal data in long, hard-to-read terms-of-service agreements, or for a platform to lock users in by making it difficult or impossible to take back their data if they want to leave. Federal privacy legislation that mandates greater transparency, provides incentives for companies to seek meaningful consent, and requires data portability across platforms should be a top priority.

Franklin Foer: The tech giants are dangerous, and Congress knows it

Congress should also bring the use of high-stakes algorithmic decision making out into the open. Algorithms are replacing human judgment in countless domains, including hiring, the determination of creditworthiness, and the allocation of important public services. A new legislative framework for algorithmic accountability is needed that ensures transparency; mandates regular, independent audits for bias; and protects Americans due-process rights.

And the growth of Big Tech will only accelerate the rise of artificial intelligence and automationa revolution with potentially massive implications for the American workforce, especially low-wage workers. Lawmakers must start getting ahead of this labor-market transformation by investing significantly in education and job-training programs to mitigate the disruptions lurking just around the corner. Successful legislation in these areas can help to renew public confidence in the governments ability to work in the public interest, creating a foundation to tackle even thornier issues in the tech sector through regulation.

Grappling with these issuesand others that new technologies will present in the futurewill require a reboot of the policy-making process, with a serious investment in bringing technologists into public service. It also requires that elected officials themselves be more educated about technology. Policy making suffers when lawmakers are informed primarily by the lobbyists who are paid to offer them a particular view. This means a more substantial role for science-and-technology-policy expertise in the executive branch, as well as the creation of robust mechanisms for providing independent policy advice to policy makers and legislators, including a revival of Congresss Office of Technology Assessment. Some progress is already evident: The awkward 2018 scene in which a confused Senator Orrin Hatch grilled Mark Zuckerberg about how Facebook could make money if its free has given way to the House Judiciary Committees in-depth, bipartisan efforts to investigate Big Techs power.

The ability of our government to digest digital innovationsand to respond nimbly and pragmatically to the problems they createis essential to the health of American society. As the Partnership for Public Service put it in a recent report, Nearly every national priority depends on an accurate, thorough, and contemporary understanding of how to use and leverage modern technology. Society needs what experts term adaptive regulation, which enables us to try new policy frameworks and learn about their effects before locking in a strategy for the long-term. The United Kingdom and Taiwan have been leaders in experimenting with this new approach through regulatory sandboxes. The financial-technology industry has been the major beneficiary; firms can test new offerings on consumers in real markets while regulators observe and evaluate their potential benefits and harms. The idea is to give new ideas a chance to take root while also protecting consumers and the public interest.

Coming to terms with the impact of technology is nothing new. The race between disruption and democracy goes on. But now its time for democracy to pick up the pace.

The article was adapted from The Winner-Take-All Race Between Disruption and Democracy in System Error: Where Big Tech Went Wrong and How We Can Reboot, to be published by HarperCollins on September 7.

See the article here:

Democracy Is Losing Its Race With Disruption - The Atlantic

Earlier today I set the following puzzle, inspired by the Borromean rings (left), which are three interlocking loops with the property that when you remove any one of them, the other two are no longer linked. In the puzzle everything falls apart when one element is removed.

Smash the picture

The picture below shows the conventional way to hang a picture on a wall with two nails. The two nails give each other back-up: if one fails, the picture will still hang (wonkily) on the other nail.

Can you think of a way to hang a picture on a wall using string and two nails, such that if either of the nails fails (and the other one doesnt) then the picture will fall to the floor?

Solution

There are several ways to solve this puzzle. One way is the Borromean rings. Just as they are three interconnected rings that fall apart when one is removed, the puzzle involves three interconnected elements (two nails and a piece of string), and when one is removed (the nail) the other two are no longer linked. Our task is thus to work out exactly how the puzzle models the rings. Heres how you might go about it. Make a set of Borromean rings with two plastic rings and a piece of string as below:

Next, separate the rings as if they are nails on the wall.

The way the string loops between the rings is the solution we are after, presented below. If either of the nails are removed, we know that the string and the other nail cannot be linked, and thus the painting will crash to the floor.

There are other solutions too, such as:

You may have preferred a physics-style answer that uses force and friction. It may be possible to stick the nails in so close to each other that they clasp a string that holds up a painting. In this case, removing either nail will cause the painting to drop.

If you are interested in this area, the paper Picture-hanging Puzzles by E. Demaine, M. Demaine, Y. Minsky, J. Mitchell, R. Rivest and M. Patrascu has many more examples and touchers on deeper ideas in topology and computer science.

A 3D version of the Borromean rings (left) is the logo of the International Mathematical Union , which is having its centennial on September 27 and 28. The schedule features talks by 17 of the worlds top mathematicians and will be broadcast live.

I set a puzzle here every two weeks on a Monday. Im always on the look-out for great puzzles. If you would like to suggest one, email me.

Im the author of several books of puzzles, most recently the Language Lovers Puzzle Book. I also give school talks about maths and puzzles (restrictions allowing). If your school is interested please get in touch.

View post:

Did you solve it? The magic of the Borromean rings - The Guardian

UPDATED: September 2, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.

Hundreds of students filed into the Science and Engineering Complex in Allston on Wednesday, the first day the eight-story steel building more than five years and $1 billion in the making hosted lectures and seminars.

Students who traveled across the river for classes Wednesday, the first day of the academic year, had largely positive reviews for the 544,000-square-foot complex, which features Active Learning Labs, greenspace terraces, and a clubhouse for student groups to work on engineering projects.

Brayan H. Romero said that while he thinks the outside of the building doesnt have too much attraction, he was impressed by its interior, and noted the complexs proximity to the Harvard Innovation Labs, an institution that promotes student entrepreneurship.

Jakob A. N. Troidl, a first-year Ph.D. candidate in Computer Science, agreed with Romero, adding that he believes the complex's openness encourages collaboration and creativity.

Inside here, it seems like a place that you want to stay with friends, and a lot of innovation can be done here, he said. The floor arrangement and everything feels like its designed to bump into people.

Mohib A. Jafri 23 spent his Wednesday evening sitting in a lecture hall at the SEC attending Computer Science 242: Computing at Scale. Jafri, who studies electrical engineering, declared the complex a huge upgrade from the old SEAS classrooms at Maxwell Dworkin and Pierce Hall, located north of Harvard Yard.

This space lends itself to a more human, happier environment, he said. Just the amount of light coming in and out like that makes an average class be a bit more peppy, a little less depressing than going into a basement.

Though SEAS and Harvard intended to have the complex ready for students use in fall 2020, construction delays and a citywide moratorium on construction due to the coronavirus pandemic pushed back the Universitys timeline. Faculty began moving into the building in spring 2021, and it officially opened in August.

A cafe run by Harvard University Dining Services and a FlyBy station, where students can grab a bagged lunch without having to make the trek across the river, also opened in the SEC on Wednesday.

University shuttles, run by Harvard Campus Services, connect students from Harvards residential houses and other academic buildings to the SEC, which sits on the opposite bank of the Charles River. A new shuttle route, dubbed Quad-SEC Direct, includes stops at the SEC, Barrys Corner, Harvard Stadium, Harvard Square, and the Quad. The existing Allston Campus Express shuttle, recently renamed the Allston Loop, has also added an SEC stop.

Nishant Mishra 24, who attended Gen Ed 1033: Conflict Resolution in a Divided World at the SEC Wednesday evening, said he anticipates an easy commute from his Quincy House dorm room to class.

Theres a stop right outside DeWolfe, so in the future, I expect it to be really convenient just to walk out and wait, he said.

Some students, though, said they experienced overcrowded shuttles en route to their first classes at the SEC.

Jaxson T. Hill 23, a Mechanical Engineering concentrator, said he hopes Harvard increases the number of shuttles running to the SEC to accommodate the between-class rush of students.

Jafri said he believes the size of the complex bodes well for the future of Harvard engineering.

Right now it feels like the space is too big for us, he said. I see an upward vector for where engineering at Harvard is going to be.

CORRECTION: September 2, 2021

A previous version of this article misattributed a quote. Brayan H. Romero, a second-year graduate student in affiliation with SEAS in Computer Science, said that while he thinks the outside of the building doesnt have too much attraction, he was impressed by its interior, and noted the complexs proximity to the Harvard Innovation Labs.

Staff writer Natalie L. Kahn can be reached at natalie.kahn@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter @natalielkahn.

Staff writer Simon J. Levien can be reached at simon.levien@thecrimson.com. Follow him on Twitter @simonjlevien.

More here:

For First Time, $1 Billion SEAS Complex in Allston Welcomes Hundreds of Students | News - Harvard Crimson

The Armenian Communities Department of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation grants over one million dollars per year to Armenian and Armenian Studies university students around the world, including renewals. In 2021, 231 scholarship applications were received for its two principal scholarship categories: Armenian Studies and Higher Education for Armenian Students in Developing Countries. As always, each application was rigorously evaluated. Seventy scholarships of varying amounts were granted: 13 in Armenian Studies (graduate level) and 57 to Armenian students in higher education (mostly undergraduate level).

A total of457,000 USD was granted in new scholarships within theArmenian Studies scholarship category. Fifty-one applications were received and 13 selected. Scholarships run from one to three years. Eight are for PhDs, one is a Post-Doc, and four are for MAs. Of the 13 scholarships, 10 went to women and three to men. The scholarship awardees are pursuing their studies in the UK, the US, France, Ireland, Spain and Netherlands. In terms of broad research topics, five are on contemporary Armenia, include two on gender-related issues, three are on language and education, three are on art, literature and heritage studies, and two are on the contemporary ramifications of the Genocide. Armenian Studies is defined in its broad sense and not confined to area studies.

A total of288,000USD was granted within theHigher Education Scholarships for Armenian Students in Developing Countries category.180 applications were received from which 57 were selected 32 women and 25 men. The topics studied include biology, law, social sciences, psychology, nursing, communications, translation, social work, robotics, engineering, business and finance, computer science, architecture, graphic design and English literature, among many others. The aim of this scholarship category is to encourage university students of Armenian origin from less developed countries, particularly undergraduates in the Middle East, to obtain higher education in any field in a recognized university in their own country of residence or in Armenia.

The Armenian Communities Department congratulates all the awardees!

These two scholarship categories are currently closed. They will reopen in January 2022 for the subsequent academic year. The Short-Term grants (for travel and for Armenian studies) remain open.

Guest contributions to the Armenian Weekly are informative articles or press releases written and submitted by members of the community.

Link:

2021 University Scholarships awarded by the Armenian Communities Department of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation - Armenian Weekly