TED: Clifford Stoll

This guy is great.

An amazing robotics video by Prof. Shigeo Hirose

MIT Sustainability Summit 2010

Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending the 2010 MIT Sustainability Summit. Unfortunately, I had classes that day, so I was only there for part of it, but the two breakout sessions that I attended were great. One was about sustainable supply chains. The speaker was Richard Locke, an MIT professor at Sloan, who did some work with Nike, Coca Cola, HP, and other global corporations. He was specifically looking at labor standards and working conditions, and how to improve them without compromising profitability. The current model seems to be that these companies have certain cost requirements, and whichever supplier can best meet those requirements is contracted for that batch. Then, they would send someone out to the factory and check things off of a list to make sure that the supplier complies with their labor standards. This sounds fine, but the problem becomes apparent if one looks at the performance of these suppliers over time. Not only are a majority of suppliers not satisfying basic labor conditions, but they do not seem to be improving over time. The main reason appears to be the incentives. The supplier has to compete with the other suppliers, so whoever can make the products cheapest and fastest is going to win the contract. Also, since these corporations are usually not the suppliers’ only customers, losing that one contract is not that big a deal. Contrary to popular belief, the corporations are not in control of whether or not their suppliers are in compliance with labor standards. The suppliers have no incentive to improve labor standards; in fact, the possibility of decreasing productivity makes them less likely to improve working conditions. The corporations have little incentive to increase their costs when everyone uses suppliers that are questionable. The speaker mentioned that they investigated a company that was famed to have suppliers that are most in compliance with labor standards, and even they only had about 25% of their suppliers satisfying all of the labor standards that are in place. So what can we do about this? The speaker suggests a new model that emphasizes commitment over compliance. Instead of forcing suppliers to simply comply with the regulations, corporations can form longer-lasting relationships and commit to them so that they have enough security to experiment with new organization in their factories. There are ways to improve working conditions and maintain productivity or even increase profitability. The supplier just needs to go through an initial adjustment period during which production may not be optimal. That’s why it is important that the corporation commit to the supplier so that they have enough security to take this risk. This all seems very logical to me, but I think convincing people to do this in reality will be difficult.

The second breakout session I went to was a panel talking about how to promote sustainability locally. I think the actual discussion moved away from sustainability exactly and went more into what modernization is doing to local communities. The Ward 6 Alderman of the City of Somerville Rebekah Gewirtz emphasized how she supports local businesses in Davis Square and has very strict rules about which national corporation she would let in to their local community. The argument seems to be that local independent businesses help foster a feeling of community that strip malls simply cannot. I am personally a little conflicted on the issue. On the one hand, I understand what she means when she says that big box stores are impersonal and take away from the identity of the place, but I also think the natural flow of economic efficiency points towards these chain stores. I talked to a friend about this, and we decided that each kind of place caters towards different populations. For cities with a large transient population such as students whose low incomes are the limiting factor, big box stores make the most economic sense. For places catering towards families and community, locally owned businesses offer an atmosphere that makes the higher prices worth it. In the end, I suppose you can’t really say that one is better than the other, but that there are just different places for different people.

Japan

Most people I know, including myself, generally associate Japan with weird things. And maybe not even any weird thing in particular, but just the idea of being weird. And recently I’ve become increasingly fascinated by the Japanese culture. I believe they’ve really challenged convention, more than a lot of alternative people here. I also enjoy how they’ve really welcomed technology into their lives. I’ve been reading Tim Rogers’s posts about Japan on kotaku.com, and they are very enlightening. It’s almost as if the Japanese are so in tune with technology that they are progressing to a scientifically better society. If you can scientifically decide what the optimal response is to certain life situations, then you have a conversation that is a paper-cutter conversation, which is one thing that Tim Rogers talks about in “Japan, It’s Not Funny Anymore.” I can’t really decide whether it is better or not to live this way, but it is certainly interesting. On the one hand, my science-loving self says it must be better if it’s optimized. And yet, the human side of me says that it is contradictory to life and freedom. And then, there are aspects of Japanese life that seem highly unordered, and no cookie cutter could produce the variety of cultural elements coming out of Japan. All I know is, I really want to go to Japan now, and see for myself what their lives are like.

I see Japan as a place where you could explore the possibilities of human existence. And no one would question you.

Green Businesses

Today I tip my hat to the business that I believe have actually made a step in the right direction in terms of being more environmentally friendly. There are, of course, numerous companies that claim to have greened their operations but really have just wasted a lot of money on their marketing department. They are not helping. Also not helping are the companies that offer environmentally friendly products at an unreasonable margin who are hoping to cash in on the hippie population. In order for the Green Revolution to work, incentives must be matched for both the company and the consumers to save the environment. A good example of this, I believe, is what Quiznos has done:

They’ve redone all of their packaging to use recycled materials, but that isn’t that new. But what I do like is their new Quiznos tote bag. I can’t find it online, but my local Quiznos started selling this tote bag that gives you a free drink with sub purchase until the end of the year if you bring the bag. This is a much better way of selling environmentally friendly tote bags than my local grocery store, for example, where you’re just told to buy a tote for the environment. Here, both parties are actually benefiting so that the incentives are there. Quiznos doesn’t really lose money from the drink purchase because drinks are virtually costless, and they gain some margins on the extra sub they may have sold. And the cost of the tote bag, but that’s minor. Customers get a nice little tote bag and free drinks. And, the best part is, no more wasted plastic bags for take out orders. For all of their greening efforts, I applaud Quiznos.

Today I found this new shoebox design from Puma:

It’s supposed to replace the conventional shoebox. As a shoebox, it’s not overly amazing. It just replaces the box with a bag and an inner support. What I really like is how this reduces the need for plastic bags to hold the shoeboxes when people buy the shoes. Here, the idea is that the “shoebox” is a little bag, and you just pull out the tab and take it to go. Since most people buy one pair of shoes at a time, it’s nice to just take your shoes and go instead of putting the shoebox inside another bag. Of course, one downside is that we will lose the nostalgic storing of household goods in extra shoeboxes, but I think we already have enough extra shoeboxes to last for a while. This is a refreshing change.

Does technology make humans obsolete?

So, obviously, this is not a novel question by any means, but my manufacturing seminar the other day was about lean manufacturing, and it got me thinking about this topic again. As someone who goes to an “institute of technology”, I’m often surprised when people don’t immediately agree that more technology is better. So one major complaint that I’ve heard about automation in factories and whatnot is that it displaces human workers and results in unemployment. However, to really decide whether or not this is true, we’d have to look at why we have employment in the first place and whether we really want to keep people employed in mindless jobs. What does it mean to pay people money for work? How can you assign a monetary amount to someone’s time and life? Is it really good that people sacrifice their lives (which is priceless) doing manual labor in a factory? Why would we want that? But that’s not where I want to go first.

First, I want to talk about technology. Most people, I think, would agree that it makes sense to make tools that help us do the things we want or even do it for us entirely. That kind of technology is probably “good”. Pencils, paper, lights, buildings, etc. all make our lives “easier” because it helps us accomplish what we want in life. I’m going to include things like bread and houses because they fall under the broad idea of “technology,” and it helps us pursue the goal of staying alive, which I’m assuming to be an innate human desire. So then it seems only natural that the pencil factory and the paper factory must be “good”, too, because they help us make pencils and paper faster and better than if we were to try to do it by hand.  And then when people make these tools for other people, business is born. But humans are possessive and greedy, so we have to pay people to give us things, and money becomes a way of obtaining the means by which to live a better life. In general, money itself is a tool that helps us get what we want at a presumably smaller cost than if we were to make it ourselves. Instead of having to plant our own food, we can buy it, etc. But we can only “earn” money by providing useful goods/services in return, and this becomes the work that we do. The issue then, is what if the good/service you provide is no longer useful? What if the work that you do can be replaced by a cheaper, more efficient version of you? I believe then it is time for people to move forward and use their time for something more productive. Leave the manual labor to the robots. Humans are blessed with the gift of thought. With robots to bear most of the burden of our day to day lives, we can use our time in a better fashion.

And besides, it’s not there’s anything any of us can do about it. It’s not really a question of “Should we have technology because it might be bad for us?” but more of a “What should we do when we get more technology?” because the fact of the matter is that technology makes us more efficient, and all the incentives are in place for more technology to come about. It will simply happen, not unlike the way natural selection happens. All we can really do is to use the technology to our benefit and not let it enslave us.

“So, were you surprised when you found out that you got into MIT?”

This weekend is our Campus Preview Weekend, and a lot of the students who got accepted into MIT’s class of 2014 come to get a feel for MIT and decide if they want to spend at least the next four years of their lives here. As such, I am reminded of a common question, which is “Were you surprised when you found out that you got into MIT?” With all the weight that MIT carries, I think when people ask that, they expect you to answer something like “Oh, yeah! I was so shocked when I got my acceptance letter. I just couldn’t believe it!” And I think this is kind of superficial and even fake. It’s not really socially acceptable to answer to the contrary. If you said “Well, not really. I expected to get in,” then they think you’re arrogant and an awkward moment ensues. I suppose the reason for this stigma is that for most people, getting into MIT would be surprising. But that’s just statistics. The truth of the matter is that a very small percentage of the U.S. population go to MIT, so when you are one of them, it’s “surprising”. If you’re at MIT, it’s not so surprising that you got into MIT. Everyone here got into MIT. If you are one of the people who are meant to go to MIT, then it really shouldn’t be so surprising that you got in, should it? And I don’t mean this in any elitist fashion. I just mean that MIT offers an environment of slightly masochistic learning that is not a good fit for everyone. Yes, I think MIT is for smart people, but that’s not to say that I think people who go to MIT are “better” than people who don’t. It’s just a different experience, and if you are meant to come here, then there’s nothing unusual about you coming here. So where does the surprise come from?

I can only think of one real reason why you’d be so surprised that you got into MIT. I should clarify here exactly which kind of surprise I mean. First, just to cover all of my bases, there’s the surprise where you didn’t even apply to MIT and then got in. That would truly be surprising. Then, by all means, express your surprise because that would be a very unusual thing to happen. Second, there’s a surprise that is associated with excitement. If you were a little nervous about getting into MIT, then when you find out you got in, it’s perfectly fine to feel excited mixed with a little surprise. But that’s the kind of surprise you feel when something you were working towards happens. It’s surprise not from the unexpected happening, but from your labors coming to fruition. That’s fine, too.  I am specifically talking about the people who are apparently entirely flabbergasted that they ever got into MIT. It was totally unexpected for them. They had no idea how they got in, and I don’t really see how their being here at MIT is justified. If you bothered to apply for MIT, then surely you had some inkling that you might get in. If you applied to MIT just for the heck of it and magically got in, then maybe you shouldn’t go to MIT. I can’t imagine how someone who is a good fit for MIT could possibly not conceive that they should get into MIT. So, honestly, if you really really have no idea why you were accepted into MIT, then I would warn that maybe you shouldn’t come to MIT, because it’s not what you might think it is, and it would just be four years of hell for you and for others around you. Getting into MIT is not like winning the lottery. You didn’t win anything by coming to MIT. You come to MIT because it’s what you were meant to do, and it’s where you belong.

Good Companies with Bad Hiring Practices

I was reading this article the other day, and it made a lot of good points. As a student constantly looking for the next summer job, I’ve had some personal experience with frustrating recruitment procedures. The article got me thinking, why do we have HR departments anyways? I imagine the birth of an HR department goes something like this: when a company first starts, the process is very personal, and the people who are interviewing you will most likely be the people who will be working with you. This makes sense. Eventually, the company gets big/successful enough that the employees are too busy working to be bothered with recruitment. Maybe they have to hire so many people that the boss/manager simply does not have time to deal with personnel management in addition to all the issues of running a company. So then they hire people whose job it is to hire more people. Eventually, as time progresses and the company gets bigger, these HR people get further and further removed from the actual work that the company does. How can you accurately judge how fitting a person is for the job if you have never done the job and don’t know exactly what you need to do said job? These and other reasons reinforce my philosophy that companies aren’t meant to expand forever. Every company has a stable size, and once you go past that size, the company gets too big for itself, and inefficiency and miscommunication problems explode. The same seems to happen for countries, but that’s a whole nother discussion.

Online resume databases are a good idea on principal, but it really detracts from the humanity of us all. Sure it would be convenient to reduce each person to some numbers and optimize the system to spit out the best candidate. But the reality is, people are not and will never be just a robot. Even if people could be approximated by robots, the only situation in which you can objectively determine how well suited a person is for the job is if the job requires no creativity at all. Only then can you pick people based solely on their resumes. (Sidenote: if you’re going to have an online resume drop for your company, at least make sure it works. I’ve tried to apply for a summer internship at P&G for a while, and I have to say, the service has been anything but satisfactory. After submitting my information, I was told to take a online assessment that was essentially a personality test, but there have been endless technical problems. I’ve contacted them and received several new links which I was told should work. And yet, as of today, I have still been unable to complete their “simple” step 2 of the recruitment process. I tried all the links on numerous browsers. I don’t know what else to do; looks like I’m not going to P&G this summer, for the silliest of reasons. What am I supposed to think about them, if this is the quality of service I receive?)

So, back to HR departments. Perhaps it’s better not to have an HR department. Have the employees themselves look for the person who will be their coworker. They’re the ones who know the job and have a serious stake in the new hire, since they’ll be working together. Of course, the difficulty here is that biases may prevent people from making an objective decision, but it’s not like you would have had an objective decision anyways from an HR department. You might protest at this point that the employees don’t have time to do this in addition to their regular jobs. Well, a company really shouldn’t grow that fast anyways. I believe that there’s more value to keeping a close tight-knit group of really dedicated people than there is in expanding the company.

And that’s my two cents.

Japanese Class

At MIT, we are in the middle of Independent Activities Period, which lasts until spring semester starts in February. During this time, students are encouraged to pursue personal projects that we don’t have time for during the semester. In past years, I’ve helped lead a design class and participated in a lego robotics competition. This year, I’m taking an intensive Japanese language course. So far it’s been much better than I’d ever imagined. Having taken six years of Spanish in school pre-college without that much gain, I didn’t expect much from this month-long class, even if it was supposed to be a whole semester’s worth of material. However, even after the first week I feel like we’ve covered a tremendous amount of material, and I already have a decent understanding of the language.

The teaching methods employed by this class are the best of any language class I’ve ever seen, even compared to other language courses at MIT this IAP. So far, we have never written anything down in class, and yet we are still learning how to write Japanese in addition to speaking and reading. Normally, this would seem preposterous in a language class. But with the time restraint, it became perfectly natural to spend as much class time as possible interactively engaged in conversation with the instructor. The entire class is taught in Japanese, with a few instructions given in English. I believe the students really benefit from the constant dialogue with the instructor and with each other in Japanese, as early as the first day of class. I also appreciate how we have not spent much time on vocabulary. Instead, the emphasis is placed on the structure of the language, so that we can learn whatever vocabulary we need later and simply place them in the structure that we have developed. That way, the small amount of time that we have for the class is utilized in the best way possible. Vocabulary and writing are things that we can practice outside of class on our own, and the time in class is used to interact in this new language. Perhaps it’s the way that the Japanese language is set up that makes it suitable for this learning style, but I am thoroughly impressed with this class, and I believe this is the best way to teach a language class that I have ever seen.

Product Highlight

• This handtruck is amazing. I can’t believe I haven’t heard of it until now:That is exactly what I’ve wanted every time I’ve had to go up stairs with a handtruck or cart or other load carrying thing with wheels. Wheels were a pretty big invention. But unfortunately, the world still has angles, so this is just perfect. I wonder how much power it uses.
• Here’s something new: bombproof wallpaper.
  Best Of What’s New 2009: Bombproof Wallpaper Test from PopSci.com on Vimeo.
• Also, for those of you at home who have some time and need something to do, here’s a do-it-yourself CNC Mill:http://diylilcnc.org/