Tag Archives: Liang’an Huo

A Freebie for you

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

The accusation and more

Yup, we all get accused, the of course includes me. In this case it is about ‘The mind stage’ which I wrote 22 hours ago. Apart from some of the deleted hatred stuff, there were some accusation that I was exaggerating about Ubisoft. As such here is the rundown. 

In the last 24 hours we see ‘Survey Finds That 20% Of Ubisoft Employees Do Not Feel Respected Or Safe In The Workplace’, and there are 3 more, then we get a few review based links with titles like ‘Hyper Scape has not met Ubisoft’s expectations’. This last headline I have no issues with, the article is clear and focussed on the game. That is part of life, the others is about perpetuating a stage well over a month old, and I get it, Ubisoft is newsworthy, but these articles are about getting clicks, as such the story is adjusted (like the survey) and there is no real stage on how long this continues. I get it, we seek what we are interested in, yet the imbalance that comes with this is also skewing the view of the people.

This matters, mainly because it comes with dangers. I have seen this before, but this time around I found FMI (Future Market Insights) divine us ‘Top 3 Cognitive Biases That Can Skew Market Research Outcomes’ (at https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/blogs/details/skew-market-research-outcomes). The stage is set to 

  • Irrational Escalation
  • Social Desirability Bias
  • Knowledge Bias

You think that this is something that balances itself, but that is not the case, it sort of relates to the sight you cannot be set to unseen. This is easily set to another stage, almost a decade ago there was a video that was called 2 girls one cup, now I was fortunate to avoid it, but anyone who has ever seen it will forever be cursed with the ability to recall it. It is something the mind cannot set to unseen and it optionally haunts you forever, even if you are able to forget, the moment it is mentioned it comes back (in technicolor plus)

So when we get to irrational escalation, sometimes it is referred to as cognitive bias or preconceived notions, it will influence you, as such overly negative views will filter you to be negative from the start (a political, or adversarial tactic). The further away it is, the easier it is to remain negative about it, because daily events will not change or adjust it to a more balanced view. In this the mind loves any form of balancing. Some sales techniques are based on this, especially if the sales track is more than instant sales (like cars, houses and larger investments), the balanced mind accepts more options especially as it can reweighs the positive and the negative to its own setting. It is not always logical, but it works, some people have an entire stage set up for this approach and they are doing a lot better than most. 

In the stage of Social Desirability Bias, we actually continue from the previous setting, the balanced mind. It becomes about projection in the conversation, often the view is set to a relationship of something the person is ready to accept, in Ubisoft case it becomes “remember how much fun we had in Origin/Brotherhood, but now you are a Viking”. It is also a view of adjustment where the positive gets a lot more time than the negative. It is also the first page where data gets skewed, whether the data is collected or instantly available, the skewing is set to a plus point, the more positive one is not on how it is shown, but how the recipient of the information gets a skewed perspective reflective towards their own feelings on the subject. This is mostly seen in market research and how it is brought (the story maker) into a presentation that is given to share holders and stake holders of the setting, yet that same approach works on everyone that the story is trying to reach. Then there is knowledge bias, it is more generic but cannot be ignored. As such we see the station of gaming, we see the bias of positivity is used to inflate the positive and the negative part does the opposite, branding tends to be the power. An example is ‘As you see this, we see the resolution, yet the Nintendo Switch can not show us this, we could argue the the other cannot do this either, we have after all the mot powerful processor in our system’, in this we see a stage where we are given (slammed with) the term teraflop as such we now see the application of both knowledge bias as well as cognitive bias, yet what we forget is that the processor is merely one element in the setting, for people who know sound equipment, it reflects as ‘buy the most expensive amplifier, it solves everything’, yet if the speakers are ignored, the sound remains awful. The same for the processor, the environment around it will be equally important. And here is the kicker, most gamers merely look at the power of the processor, thinking the this solves it all, but like looking at any console, it is not the hardware, the games are the station of testing and the is where some come out better than others. This is a setting where Ubisoft failed, the idea was accepted and then it was given to marketing and the idea was drowned (or smothered) whilst not setting the stage correctly. I had stated a few times that testing was insufficient (or the issues could not be fixed) this ended up being seen in too many games. 

It is not just a Ubisoft issue, EA was equally stupid, relying on Knowledge Bias of the first three games and then dropping Mass Effect Andromeda on the same population, the effect is that a brand is now dealing with a massive effect of negativity (pun intended). They need to clean house and they need to do this fast (one more than the other), yet the stage is evolving and not for the good, the three markers have been used too long and too often, there is a larger bias running now, it is set to the lack of credibility and soon that will end up being the marker we see advertised and propagated. Here I need to make a jump. In 2015 Liang’an Huo (et al) gave us 

Optimal control of a rumour propagation model with latent period in emergency event’ this is important as we see here “Because network information has always suffered from a lack of credibility, people cannot believe it immediately but are able to believe news from their friends and relatives more easily. Especially, rumours mostly come from a network and then spread in real life mouth to mouth. Many rumours come from a network and are hidden in the depths of one’s heart for a period of time before he/she becomes a spreader or stifler in real life”, yet as I see it, it is not limited to information networks, there is a credible case that we can alter this into “because aided and given information has since the digital age suffered from a lack of credibility”, we see the stage where one ‘network’ one’s ‘connections’ are now a much larger stage of subjective perception (subjective bias as well as cognitive bias), and this is where the wheels come off the train and they then call it a hovercraft with needless rails. Yet when we consider “By means of the Lyapunov function and LaSalle’s invariant set theorem, we proved the global asymptotical stable results of the rumor-free equilibrium and the rumor-endemic equilibrium by using the Poincarè-Bendixson property” the paper now gives us “an optimal control problem is formulated, from the perspective of a manager in emergency events”, which applies to emergency events, yet in the mind of the buyer, a console is an emergency event (even if they ignore it), they are dealing with peer pressure and the fear of buying the bad product is optionally killing them inside. In the past we had VHS versus VCC (some might remember that) and marketing set us to the weaker product because that is where the need was, a fluctuated ‘peer pressure’ part and that is now reflective in the news we are given, they are adhering to share holders, stakeholders and advertisers, yet the people are weary. And that stage is getting flooded on a few stages where the marketeers are remaining in the ‘more is better’, yet the imbalance is now hitting people to a much larger degree and they are rejecting all information as their cognitive bias is set to minus 100. So now we see the application of market research in the field. If we consider business strategy as a solution to consoles and software, the stage changes when we consider “an organised effort to gather information about target markets and its customers; know as much as possible about them and identifying who they are”, yet the three bias flags and the flooding of less and less accepted information makes all that harder and the stories linked to them are adjusted, but are they correctly adjusted? The market knows less and less yet they proclaim that they do. As such we reflect on the Ubisoft stage, insider how accepting a vast amount of gamers are towards the marketed hype creation (a flaw Microsoft has as well), and as knowledge bias is shifted (through the teraflop stories) and cognitive bias is limited as people are less trustworthy of handed information as such they now more and more rely on their own ambassador of a product (the gamer next door), optionally the mechanic they know from school when they are considering a car, the stage changes and we see new reflective bias and the partial title of that paper ‘Optimal control of a rumor propagation model’ now comes into focus. It is seen in the conclusion where I state (an altered version) “Rumour propagation can have serious consequences; thus the study on how to take effective measures to control its spreading through filtering is of great practical significance”, I added ‘through filtering’, the setting is that we need to be able to filter through deletion of bias and controls spreading by stopping propagation of those affecting knowledge bias and cognitive bias. You think it is easy, but it is not, it will optionally become a new set of markers that will impact web surfing under 5G. Ubisoft brings it to the surface as it was the most pronounced there, but there are dozens of other sources in a similar predicament. It will stage a new form of marketing the needs to set the stage of weighted and unweighted data and the effects of boas filters, it will end up being a new form of filtering.

It is perhaps the only moment where I feel that the paper is missing something (it was not on them), It is seem when we see ‘General rumour propagation model with latent period and having constant immigration’, it is my personal view the there is a need to see ‘General rumour propagation model with adjusted weighting due to pushed trending external adjustments

1 Comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media, Science