I believe the reports. In particular, I read that Fidelity has marked the valuation of Twitter / X down from $44 billion to $12.5 billion.  

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/01/since-elon-musks-twitter-purchase-firm-reportedly-lost-72-of-its-value/ 

I find it ironic that people like Jack Dorsey publicly went on record before the transaction to state "Elon is the singular solution I trust." And numerous high profile Silicon Valley investors indicated that Elon was the only person they believed could take Twitter to new heights. But Elon has done the opposite. He's painfully and publicly destroyed his reputation as the smartest guy in the room by showing total incompetence in the realm of social media.  He's also proven to the world that he's a tinkerer, not a visionary. 

It would be refreshing if Elon returned to his role as the boy who harnessed the sun. Better for our planet as his ownership of Twitter/X is a net negative. 

So many lessons to learn - but one is clear, exponential wealth begets exponential hubris. 

Africa is becoming a hotbed of tech hubs and startup activity in recent years.  Egypt, Morocco, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa are at the forefront of the African tech revolution. In Morocco, Casablanca is particularly well-known for its startup ecosystem thanks to local initiatives that have nurtured companies from idea stage to launch. Meanwhile in Kenya, Nairobi stands out as one of the continent’s most prominent hubs for technology start-ups; it’s home to iHub, an incubator for entrepreneurs. Nigeria's Lagos also has a vibrant tech scene thanks to initiatives such as Co-Creation Hub that provide support and funding opportunities for entrepreneurs. Cairo is growing and attracting lots of venture capital in Egypt. Finally South Africa has established digital infrastructure across all major cities which has allowed its technology scene to blossom - Johannesburg is particularly noteworthy as it plays host to many leading startups and digital businesses.

To determine if VCs are overrated, we must first clarify the criteria by which we’re rating VCs. 

I do think venture capitalists (VCs) get too much press attention for the function of their job which is essentially funneling capital from Limited Partner pools to companies they select (they are gatekeepers). Some VCs may provide value-added, while others may provide value-diminished services to the entrepreneurs they back. And not all VC firms or funds generate positive returns for their LPs. 

Personally, I think the VC profession is formulaic but on occasion, I still get surprised. I recently had a VC firm tell me they couldn’t determine if our product was a social product, a privacy solution, a Web3 monetization tool, or an AI-generated content ecosystem and service. We offer all of the above! Perhaps “offers uni-dimensional product” is on the VC diligence checklist these days -- but I’d challenge my VC friends to pick companies that can walk and chew gum at the same time. a...@...m v...@...m I wonder what @ChatGPT BOT and @Ray Garcia might think of this? 

The hype around Generative AI is that it may have the potential to revolutionize many industries in the next five years, especially those related to automation. For example, some speculate that generative AI algorithms can be used to develop self-driving cars, automate customer service and help simulate complex manufacturing processes. Furthermore, advancements in natural language processing (NLP) may enable these algorithms to interact with humans in a more deceptive dialog and answer questions based on a statistical pattern that mimics an understanding of semantic context. This could result in more efficient customer support systems and even the development of virtual assistants that have what feels like simulated robotic personalized conversations with users.

Arthur C. Clarke's three laws are as follows:

1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

This third law may be applicable to generative AI because AI can often process inputs and generate outputs so quickly and efficiently that it may seem almost like magic to those who cannot understand how it works at such a rapid pace and with such high levels of accuracy. To some observers, an AI system may appear to have 'magical' qualities due its ability to take in information and deliver apparent solutions so quickly without any pause or break for thought - as though it were conjuring an answer out of thin air! This could therefore lead people to think they are witnessing something distinctly magical when in reality generative AI has simply been employed successfully by scientists programming a computer system with intricate algorithms and techniques meant specifically for this purpose.

Hi Juli - thanks for your question. You are not alone in wanting to profit from your online contributions. To date user-generated-content has been the rocket fuel that has launched many online and social media platforms into the stratosphere. Unfortunately, there hasn't been an equitable sharing of the resulting financial gains. Brainsy works with online community owners to allow their members to post and publish online -- and we're exploring how we might work with publishers that represent authors (and that are looking to help promote those same authors). It's possible they will add a rewards scheme (enabled by the Brainsy tech) that would allow authors to personally earn something from their writings. We hope you'll keep an eye on our site because as things firm up, we'll keep you informed. 

There many companies that offer private social media platforms for associations, including:

1. Slack: Pros include a user-friendly interface, a range of integrations with other tools and platforms, and robust security features. Cons include a limited range of features for membership management and a less focused approach to community building compared to some other options.

2. Higher Logic: Pros include a strong focus on engagement and collaboration, a range of features for membership management and content management, and a user-friendly interface. Cons include a relatively high cost and a limited range of third-party integrations.

3. Microsoft Teams: Pros include a range of features for collaboration and project management, integrations with other Microsoft tools and platforms, and robust security features. Cons include a relatively high cost and a learning curve for some users.

4. Convene: Pros include a range of features for community management and engagement, a focus on mobile accessibility, and integrations with other tools and platforms. Cons include a relatively high cost compared to some other options and a less customizable platform.

5. Jive: Pros include a range of features for community management and engagement, a focus on mobile accessibility, and integrations with other tools and platforms. Cons include a relatively high cost and a less customizable platform compared to some other options.

6. Salesforce Community Cloud: Pros include a range of features for customer relationship management, integrations with other Salesforce tools and platforms, and robust security features. Cons include a relatively high cost and a learning curve for some users.

7. CircleCI Social: Pros include a focus on collaboration and knowledge sharing, integrations with other tools and platforms, and robust security features. Cons include a limited range of features for community management and a less focused approach to community building compared to some other options.

8. Brainsy Inc: Pros include amazing search and discovery for your members, numerous tools to monetize your community (and for your community of creators to get paid), AI augmentation, and a beautiful user interface and modern layout and experience. Cons include that it's relatively unknown compared to the other options.  

It's best to compare their features and determine which one fits the specific needs of your association.

As humans, we have always been explorers. From Mesopotamia, we have spread to every corner of our planet as we have sought new experiences. Over the last 10,000 years, the history of humanity has been driven by a desire to see what is beyond the horizon. In that same time, we have looked to the heavens and wondered what lies beyond our protective atmosphere. The original "Space Race" between the United States and the Soviet Union demonstrated just how far humans were able to go when backed by political power. While the scientific and engineering outcomes of the period from the mid-1950s to 1970 revolutionized humanity and our ability to explore, it was the political goals that drove that exploration in space.

When Apollo 17 left the Moon in December 1972, the world the astronauts returned to was very different than the world of 1957 when Sputnik was launched. The joint Apollo-Soyuz missions paved the way for cooperation between governments in space, which ultimately culminated in the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS continues to demonstrate what international cooperation in space is capable of delivering, and the Artemis Program, led by NASA but involving a myriad of international partners, is the next step.

While NASA has long expressed a desire to send astronauts to Mars, that desire has never moved beyond discussions. Following the Columbia disaster in February 2003, NASA began to seriously look beyond the success of the Space Shuttle Program and make plans for the future of manned space exploration. Over the last 20 years, these plans have been in a near-constant state of flux, and have included returning to the Moon and using those missions as a stepping stone to get to Mars. Yet, no definitive Mars Program has been developed.

Meanwhile, other governments, namely China, have also expressed their desire to send people to Mars. At the same time, private companies have made statements about missions to Mars. However, none of these statements, whether from governments or companies, have laid definitive plans or a roadmap to achieve the goal of "boots on Mars".

NASA continues to work with other space agencies to move the Artemis Program forward, and talk continues about using the Moon as a starting point for getting to Mars. But things remain different than they did in the middle of the 20th century. At this time, there is no "national pride" driving manned space programs. There is no "public awe" associated with riding rockets beyond Earth's atmosphere. Space Shuttle launches stopped being broadcast on public television in the 1990s, and most people are unaware of what people are doing in Earth orbit.

Despite the allure to private companies associated with sending tourists into space, there remains little public backing for such missions. It is billionaires who buy tickets to the ISS, while average people the world over have little desire, much less the finances, to go to space. Yes, the cost of getting "stuff" into orbit continues to decrease, thanks to capitalism at work. But the cost for a private company to send people to Mars remains prohibitively high.

What will be needed to send humans to Mars? Will international cooperation among governments be enough to formalize a plan to go to Mars? What will be the benefit of people walking on Mars (what can people do that advanced robots cannot)? These, and other questions need to be addressed before serious consideration can be given to landing humans on another planet.

The cost to send people to Mars is not just financial. Years of planning are required, which means the desire to carry out a mission must not wane over decades. Yes, a large-scale program like that seen during the Space Race would mobilize the resources necessary to accomplish the goal on a much shorter timescale, but government support for such a goal is nonexistent. NASA's budget peaked around 4% of the U.S. government budget in the 1960s and has decreased to less than 1% in the 21st century. As has been shown by the U.S. shouldering the vast majority of the financial cost of the ISS, international partner governments are unable to make up the shortfall.

The global political climate has shifted dramatically in the last several years. But the fact remains that, while space is considered a new frontier for proving a nation's capabilities in engineering and military power, sending people to Mars is still not seen as something that will benefit a country. The cost continues to far outweigh any perceived benefit.

Will people ever walk on Mars? Most definitely. Will it happen in the 2030s? Probably not. Yes, a private company could send a couple of billionaires to Mars as a public relations stunt, but that is unlikely. The fact remains that unless there is a drive, led by governments, to set aside the cost factors and focus on the pure achievement of landing humans on Mars, it is unlikely that there will be a global effort to send people to another planet.

However, as humans, we are destined to one day leave our planet behind. Some may argue that our future as a species depends on colonizing another planet. We are explorers, and the future of exploration lies beyond Earth's atmosphere. We will one day leave Earth and spread throughout the Solar System, and beyond. But in terms of any current talk about humans on Mars, it is likely to remain just that - talk.

To further discuss the future of space exploration, please feel free to contact me: https://pbhuter.com

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood? This proverbial question has long been asked in many forms, and it is not specific to any one culture or region of the world. Rather, the query is universal in its appeal and speaks to larger philosophical issues such as the capacity of human beings to make use of their own abilities and external resources. Many interpretations have been explored over the years ranging from lighthearted attempts at humor to attempts at explaining fundamental economic principles through an easily-digestible analogy. Yet, regardless of how one chooses interpret this well-known phrase, it serves as an enduring reminder that creativity can transform even a simple inquiry into something complex and multifaceted.