Yes, you read it right, I am about to give you all a freebie. Over the last two days I set in motion a new piece of IP, but there are parts that I am not ready for, the idea is, but I am not, So I am making it public domain with this article. It all started two days ago, there was an imbalance and I set it in writing but something happened as I did it, I realised that no one had taken it to this level ever before, all the clever people at Microsoft, Apple and Google, they have nothing on this, so I am making it public domain. I have at least 4 more pieces of IP, several ready for patenting, all mine, and this is my way of pushing the world into action. I considered to be a Jonas Salk in disguise, but that is not me, this is about something else and the power of progression is not to sell it, but to make it common good for all, if it cannot be patented it is open source to all who consider it and even as they do, there are a few persons who have the advantage, they worked on the paper that could be the foundation of what this becomes. Yet before I do that, I need to tell you the story how this came about, it is actually important, it makes what comes next easier to comprehend.
My background in all this is data, I have been involved with data systems, legacy systems, cleaning data and arbitrary manipulation of data for well over 30 years, so I have been around a long time (I am actually that old). I was there when DBase 2 started, I was there at the beginning of the Clipper Compiler. The start of Microsoft SQL Server (which they bought from Sybase), the VAX/VMS data systems, IBM DB2 on AIX and more. I have seen data in so many ways it could be regarded as scary, but that was the past. An imbalance hit me two days ago and it resulted in the article ‘The mind stage’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/10/04/the-mind-stage/), I gave my view, however some threw questions at me, two were valid. So I set out to answer them to the best of my ability and it resulted in ‘The accusation and more’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/10/05/the-accusation-and-more/), yet as I wrote the article and set out with the examples, an idea hit my head and I had been busy all day today (in the back of my mind) to sort it out, in all this the discussed paper ‘Optimal control of a rumour propagation model with latent period in emergency event’ by Liang’an Huo, Tingting Lin, Chongjun Fan (et al) set my mind in motion.
To explain this a little more, consider a page rank (something Stanford University came up with for Google), every page has a rank and that is what sets out some level of importance or perhaps influence is at times a better word. And until now it was often enough, but 5G allows for people to be exposed to data 10 times more and now we see the pressure that the reader is exposed to, what is relevant? You see from the market research side we get exposed to bias, it results in:
- Irrational Escalation
- Social Desirability Bias
- Knowledge Bias
Yet the stage is no longer a level playing field, the exposure to the people is almost 100%, as such we see the need for an additional number, a ‘bias weight’, this is however not linked to the document but the reader, at this stage it is there but it is mappable, in the future it is less likely so, and like response weights, factorial weights and other corrective measures, no-one has taken the time to set the stage for bias, but in 5G it will be a big thing, much bigger than anyone realises.
As such the stage is more important, if 100% is exposed to bias via news, via social media, via websites and preset stages, it becomes more and more important to figure out how much bias a person is exposed to and 5G allows for this (well 4G allows for it too, but the systems slow down too much), with 5G it all goes faster, so the stage needs adjustment and adding a group of filters becomes essential for all kinds of reasons. The paper gives us “Rumours are part of our everyday life, and its spreading has a significant impact on human lives. Hayakawa defines rumour as a kind of social phenomenon that a similar remark spreads on a large scale in a short time through chains of communication”, which I accept, yet bias moves in pretty much the same way, we have however until now never given it the consideration it deserves. Just like rumours, bias works like accumulation and that is where the sausage gets the sauce, yet in all this, who is the biased person? Can he influence our needs positively or negatively? That answer needs to be found. Not because it is nice, or because it is essential, but for all kinds of data collecting fields all kinds of product fields and all kinds of manufacturing it will matter soon enough, when 5G is racing at top speeds, it will become a massive issue and the developers need time to get any kind of systems in place, so I am making the thoughts public domain, and you all get to have good luck with it.
In this field, feel free to delete my thoughts, feel free to ignore me, but whomever works out the math will make one hell of an amount of money (please remember me if you do). Oh, and those who think I am rambling? In 1997 I came up with a servicing solution and the company at the centre, my bosses laughed at my idea, I still have the email somewhere, Facebook came 4 years later and did what I thought of (and more). I had one other idea which Sony got, but they neglected it and now some see the benefits the this system had, so I am decently certain on my ideas.
The work I looked at referred to Daley and Kendall, yet in that stage the setting is to some degree missing or incomplete (for my purpose). As we read “At any time an individual can be classified as one of three categories: X(t) denotes those individuals who are ignorant of the rumour; Y(t) denotes those individuals who are actively spread- ing the rumour; and Z(t) denotes those individuals who know the rumour but have ceased spreading it”, we can exchange rumour for bias, but the would be incorrect (incomplete is more correct), even as we see three directions of bias (mentioned earlier), we need to see that in two dimensions. Internal bias and external bias. For this example I will use gamers (myself), I am a PlayStation guy, I dumped my Xbox because of Microsoft actions and I lost faith in their product. So there is an internal bias towards Sony (optionally Nintendo too), and it is in the ‘automated’ negative towards Microsoft. We cannot do this on every brand, it becomes a data mess, but the exposure I have on classes might be different, a stage of Z scores in 6 parts (3 internal and three external) might be easier, and as this is set to the person, the seeker online, it is the persons bean (a java bean pun), so we need to find a larger solution that can paint whole populations by the actions they take, and this is not about transgressing on privacy, but on the system wielder disregardful of who they are, So as Kendall and Daley were in a stage of three, it is not merely ignorant of the bias, there will be an internal bias towards brands, towards application and towards choice, but the external factor is one that we see if the person has been exposed to, so we see part of the solution in front of us and to find the core the adjusts bias is partially found and over time optionally completed, but in this we are not about what the score is, but if certain score exceeds a certain value, if that is the case the person is biassed, and now we can decently reflect whether the person is the one that we seek (we being the interested party whomever they are) and with the number, we get a much larger efficiency towards what the goal was. The old expression is ‘all cats are grey in the dark’, which now gets us to ‘all seekers are equally grey on the internet’, which changes the game for everyone, yet when someone learns of an ability to filter or weigh bias, that stage changes and it will change for everyone depending on the internet.
So whatever you decide, have a great day.