« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »
Concerning Isolation by Mark Johnson
Sever relations when times they are rough:
Giving tough love is easier than being tough.
Keep those that you have in a simple divide
With love on your face, but the true love inside.
Charm them up front, but don't let them close
In the long run the distance is better for both.
You sprint far ahead, but whatever you do
They'll be quick on your heels: they're herd through and through.
Written on 4/27/08 at In-n-Out
I hosted an event at my house in late 2007 that featured former Georgia Senator Bob Barr speaking to a group of libertarian-minded leaders. The group included representatives from libertarian think-tank Pacific Research Institute, the Federalist Society, the EFF, the Ron Paul campaign, and of course, the Libertarian Party. Barr gave an inspirational speech on his journey from the Republican to the Libertarian Party. What impressed me the most was Barr's ability to channel the energy of the gathered crowd: though most people present were "small-l" libertarians, Barr carefully explained the Libertarian position in a very approachable way. Too often members of the LP seem caustic and opinionated when talking about libertarian issues, which doesn't win any converts.
Therefore, I was pleased to see that Barr recently announced his intention to explore a bid to run as the Libertarian candidate for president. Barr's political experience is evident in the way he deftly answered questions from Hannity and Colmes. Instead of diving deep into the LP's platform, he stayed appropriately high-level: focus on Federalism and smaller government. I'm sure that he'll get flack from dogmatic Libertarians who criticize his position on heroin, but I'd challenge them: the libertarian's concern shouldn't be specific (and debatable) issues like heroin, but the larger problem of government encroaching our lives. Hats off to Barr for recognizing this crucial difference in communicating the libertarian message to the US electorate.
At one time, I was heavily involved in the Libertarian Party, but I've completely pulled out to focus on my career. Once I have more financial resources and time, perhaps I'll return, but for now, I just can't be satisfied with a party that's happy with infighting and squeaking by with 2% of the vote. However, if people like Barr start to make their mark in the Party, that might accelerate my return. . . we'll have to see how the 2008 Libertarian Convention shakes out. I'd love to see a Paul-Barr ticket, but that's probably unlikely.
Earlier today, I commented on a blog post that had wild speculative remarks about Powerset. The author sent me an e-mail back, noting that the piece was actually satirical. I would have left the comment even if I had noticed: what about other people that stumble upon the article and don't realize that it's satire? As a steward for Powerset's brand, I want to make sure that people know what's true and what's false.
But, I was reminded that the line between truth and fiction on the Web is very fuzzy. People's doctored profiles oftentimes bear little, if any resemblance to their real-word referents. One might suggest that reference is foundational to truth, but then one would be adhering to a much maligned philosophical tradition. There are also facts that are only true in some contexts. For example, in the Wikipedia article about Saddam Hussein in South Park, it's true that Saddam was killed by Satan, but we know that in the real world, Saddam was hanged. The "right" answer to "Who killed Saddam Hussein" depends on what you're talking about; and both answers might be interesting, regardless of their truth value. Satire presents another problem. Though something might be written full of "incorrect" information, the piece overall might have a lot of meaning and value. Normative statements are especially hairy. The truth of "George Bush is an idiot" depends on what your definition of "idiot" is. Truth seems to be elusive.
Inbound links, anchor text, and hundreds of other signals might be useful in determining the popularity of a page, but it's not clear to a dumb marketing guy like me how to construct a signal for truth. The source isn't much of a help, because sites like Valleywag report truths, half-truths, and fantasy all under a single umbrella. A fact's frequency might be some kind of help, but what happens when a fictional story of a historical character gets more internet play than his real story?
Part of the problem might be our inability to give an adequate theory of truth, but the same might be said about popularity in a pre-Google world. Google helped to shape our version of popularity by giving popularity a formal definition, but only because that definition agreed with our common sense notion of popularity. When you see bad search results, Google can't scold you and tell you that your ideas of popularity is wrong according to their definition. Rather, it has to figure out how to conform it's definition to the majority of people.
From that angle, maybe my worries are unfounded. People seem to have a good eye for differentiating fact from fiction, even with (or especially because?) all of the information available on the Web. My selfish concern, of course, is to make sure that Powerset returns the "right" answers to questions, but the definition of "right" is the crux of the problem.
No answers here, just a bunch of questions. That's why I love philosophy!
The LA Times today reported why I have an "untidy bush growing on my chin and upper lip area." (Hat's off to Frank Zappa for the phrase "upper lip area.") A number of employees here at Powerset have banded together for an underground project: Powerstache. I, for one, am ready to go under the razor, but not until launch. . .
In case you don't know, reCAPTCHA is used to verify that you're a real human by showing you two words scanned out of a text, one known and one unknown. The second word is hard to make out, but can be read very inappropriately. Yikes!
Every company hits an inevitable point where it decides to think about picking a new name. So many freakin' considerations: is the URL available? Is the name spellable? Does it accurately describe the product/company? Does it evoke positive images? Does it have good "mouthfeel"? Does it make our company serious/goofy/intellectual/consumer-friendly/etc.? Is it already being used? Does it look too much like our competitors? Will it last? Is there a racial slur in the middle of it? Can it be used as a verb?
All in all though, I find a lot of these discussions meander through meaningless sessions of creativity. Look at some of the biggest internet companies. I can only imagine the conversations with these names:
Brands that succeed get all sorts of retrofitted praise. "I love the playful colors of the Google logo that comfort users even though they're using a complex technology." The reality is that young companies should spend more time thinking about their messaging and positioning and less time thinking about their brand. The time spent in considering how to talk to the press, how to have a conversation about your product in the blogosphere, and how to frame user problems is much more valuable than establishing an over-thought brand with no market traction.
Sure, if you're P&G, brand-management suddenly becomes important. But let's face it: what the Hell does a name matter for an unknown startup? I remember back when Kosmix was being renamed from its old company name: Cosmix. For all the time we spent looking at alternatives, we just changed the "c" to a "k." The time was well spent, however, in that thinking about the name forced us to consider how to position Kosmix against our competitors.
Has anyone else been involved in product or company naming discussions? I'm curious to know if there's a good process or good experiences out there.
