Hi-Res Audio -- Hear What You've Been Missing

When I got my first job out of college I invested in a good audio system. Back then it was a Harman Kardon Citation amplifier and pre-amp, a Bang & Olufsen straight arm turntable, a Kenwood tuner, and a set of Bose 901 speakers. For decades those remained the center of my home entertainment system. As I got older, and had kids, music evolved, and not always for the better, though certainly for the more convenient. The television became the center of home entertainment, no longer the stereo. Portable music went from cassette players, to CD players, to MP3 players, and while the quantity increased, the quality declined. Generations of us accepted the trade off. Still, there were those amongst us who held onto the old ways. They kept their vinyl records, they upgraded their systems, putting anywhere from $25.000 to $250,000 and more into high end audiophile systems.

At the recent Consumer Electronics Show, where monstrous UHD 4K Televisions with 108" curved screens were grabbing the attention, about a mile and a half away from the main action, in a back room of the Venetian Hotel, there was a relatively small exhibit space devoted to what may just be the next big wave in music: High-Resolution audio, also known as Hi-Res Audio and sometimes also referred to as High Definition or HD audio. This niche market is now benefitting from a concerted industry effort to bring top end audio back at an affordable (though not cheap) price. It means digitized audio tracks that are significantly better quality than what you'll find on most download services. It's not as if all just sprang up this week. For several years, Hi-Res audio has been a growing, though boutique industry. Now, with a big push from Sony and some other players, Hi-Res audio promises to push out of the back rooms onto the main stage of the digital music business.

Just How Good Is It?
It's always difficult to describe something better than what you're used it. Only in this case it's a little like back to the future. Remember those vinyl albums from your youth or young adulthood? Only without the dust and scratches. With a good "live" recording you felt like you were sitting in front of the stage. You could hear the artist's fingers sliding along the guitar strings, the vibrations of the violin strings, and the thump of the timpani. They're all back with Hi-Res audio. When I first listened to a demo of some Sony gear a couple of months ago, it almost took my breath away. There were sounds I had never heard on an MP3 recording. Here's the reason - before the advent of the digital world, all our recordings were analog, and reproduced sounds close to what we heard. Then, when digital came along, our music started coming on CD's - good quality, but big files. In order to squeeze those files so they'd take up less room on our devices, the engineers came up with MP3, which was only an approximation of that original recording. Now, Hi-Res audio files take a step towards recreating that original analog experience with a much higher sampling rate. Sony defines Hi-Res as anything better than CD quality. The graph below illustrates the comparison of analog, MP3, and Hi-Res.


You don't have to bust open your piggy bank to get started with Hi-Res audio. A couple of hundred dollars will do. Of course you can also invest tens of thousands. But even at the entry level, you're going to notice, and presumably appreciate the differences. The least expensive way to get started is by attaching a Digital Audio Converter (DAC) to your computer. The Dragonfly DAC from AudioQuest costs about $150 and will allow you to take Hi-Res tracks that you've downloaded onto your computer and play them into either headphones or a hi-fi system. You'll need some specialized software to do that such as the audio player from JRiver for about $50. Cambridge Audio makes a DAC for just under $200. While your Hi-Res tracks will sound better than MP3's on any good headphones, they'll sound great on headphones optimized for Hi-Res. Most of us have heard of Sennheiser, which makes top end phones ranging from about $130 to $1500. A company you may not have heard of is Grado Labs . We tried a set of their RS-2i phones ($495) and were blown away at the accuracy of the sound reproduction without coloration. Grado's line of audiophile phones and earbuds ranges from just about $100 all the way up $1695 for their top of the line professional model.

To move up to the next level, you'll need a Hi-Res digital audio player that has internal storage, and a variety of inputs and outputs. Sony makes several Hi Res players ranging in price from about $800 to $2000. We tried their HAP-S1/B player with 500 GB of internal storage. Sony offers a free app that runs on both iOS and Android that makes it pretty easy to wirelessly load music and control playback functions. Sony also makes two sets of Hi-Res speakers, the SS- HA3/B ($350) and the SS-HA1/B ($800). Of course, you can go up, way up. Induction Dynamic ID1 tower speakers cost $13,000. Each. Antelope Audio makes a range of digital audio gear that starts at just under $1900 and ranges to more than $7000. There are also portable players that will fit in your pocket. At the lower end is the FiiO X3 at about $200, while Astell&Kern
makes a range of devices from about $700 to $3200. We've been trying out their AK120 model which also has Bluetooth connectivity.

Feuding Formats
One of the things holding the industry back has been a confusing number of formats. Hi-Res does not have a single standard. There are a variety of formats with names like FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, DDE, DSD and others. The audiophiles will keep on arguing over these audio files. But now Sony and others give you the ability to playback all or most of the formats so you don't have to make a choice. The differences among them focus on sampling rates and compression. But no matter which way you hear them, they are all significantly better than the MP3's that most of us have gotten used to.

All About Content
Another issue has been content. So far this is still very much a boutique business. The largest player, HDTracks, has a substantial catalog that's still only a fraction of a percentage point of what's available in MP3 format. And the download music stores that are out there such as iTrax, Blue Coast Records, and others often specialize in releases from one or two labels, or just a handful of artists. If you're a dedicated fan of a particular artist you may be able to find Hi-Res tracks. But finding out which download store has which artists can be a time consuming and often frustrating effort. Cost is another factor. Hi-Res albums often cost between $17 and $25. That's a lot more than your iTunes albums, and in many cases you cannot download individual tracks, only the full album. The costs are not prohibitive but do reflect the realities of the business. It costs money to get the rights to the original master tapes and then recompile them digitally and re-release them. And since this is still a relatively small scale business, the sellers so far really can't enjoy economies of scale.

The Hi-Res audio business is clearly picking up steam. Each week there are new Hi-Res versions of old albums coming to market and new artist recordings as well. The range of gear is growing, some of it with entry level prices. And I expect that at next year's Consumer Electronics Show, Hi Res audio will be making a much louder noise.

Erin Monday on Storytelling and Collaboration at the Heart of Your Social Strategy

This is the first post of the Social Storytelling Series -- a series which aims to highlight individuals and organizations that embrace the power of social media to empower their communities through impactful storytelling.

Silicon Valley Lost Found Refuge in Social Media



Erin Monday told me she represents the "Silicon Valley Lost".

Curious as to what she could possibly mean, I continued to read on.

"Hidden in the woods, a quiet research community is developing drugs that eradicate all traces of HIV, installing the nation's first brain stem cell implant and discovering proof of alternative universes. But these accomplishments are all but invisible to the American consciousness; they are stories untold, due to a lack of national press in North Carolina."

The Communications Director for The Research Triangle Park told me that despite lacking the national press in their area, she found refuge through social media.

"Social media is restoring equilibrium -- and these incredible deeds are beginning to emerge from the trees. Three very different cities are, for the first time, working together to promote a region's news. In a year, their efforts have generated enough buzz to generate 62,523,151 impressions and touch 11,37,451 unique users.

This buzz has netted mentions in the Atlantic Cities, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Esquire, Vice, and Eater -- as well as real interest from brands like Google, Samsung, Lockheed Martin, Ernst & Young and the Kauffman Foundation.

A tech-savvy, engaged community spanning 2 million individuals in Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill is helping to reintroduce the Research Triangle Park's brand to a whole new generation."

Empowering their Community through Collaborative Storytelling
Representing 2 million people in their region, they turned to Twitter and became the megaphone for sharing all kinds of stories.

"We are a community working together. Using Twitter, the community actively shares the story - which is why our reach is so impactful."

The foundation of the organization itself was built through collaboration. Bankers, university leaders and everyday people independently crowdfunded the resources to build the Research Triangle Park back in the 1950's -- essentially turning NC's economy into an innovation-based one, saving the area from dire economic peril. The region has since prospered greatly and today, the same organization is still in place as a private, not-for-profit entity sworn to make life better for those who live in North Carolina. Part of that pledge, to us, means helping the people that live here have a voice on the world stage.

Fueled by the same spirit of collaboration, the organization has successfully launched campaigns through their unified social media approach such trying to get Zach Galifianakis to represent Raleigh at SXSW, selling tickets for George Takei's Symphony and the first to support local organizations in competitions.




The Trickle Down Effect

With such interest online, the organization has started being able to garner support for in-person social events. One of these is RTP 180 -- a series of mini-TED talks that features members of our community. While the event was free, over 300 tickets sell out every month and where they featured movies and TV stars and even Halliburton's CTO.

How Can Other Organizations Succeed in Social Media?

For Erin and the Research Triangle Park, social media has become their our primary marketing vehicle and it has been absolutely essential in building momentum in their community.

"Social media changed everything -- it helped us see all the loose threads, so we can pull them together through our Twitter as a regional voice. It helps tell the stories of those who live here - regardless of physical borders. Through retweets, we we're able to weave a tapestry to show the greater whole".

Tips to Getting Your Story Heard Through Social Media

Having had much success in telling their community and organization's story through collaboration and social media, I've asked Erin to share tips on how others can do it too!

1) Demonstrate impact.
Whenever we're featured in a major publication, as a region or as an entity, we share screenshots on Twitter to let people know we're doing what we can to help. We also tweet a screenshot of our Twitter statistics every month, to let people know that *their* retweets and support are important, and helping us make an impact. Our followers support matters to us. We want to let them know how much so, in real numbers.

2) Flattery will get you everywhere.
Social is only as powerful as that mythical "engagement" thing. How do you get engagement? For any kind of community, a good tactic is to feature your target audience whenever possible. Tell their stories, make them feel special -- and get their buy-in.

3) Tell good stories.
No one wants to consume boring content. Serve up mac and cheese, not Brussels sprouts (sorry Belgium). Good storytelling is tasty -- and it's often simple to prepare.

Here's an iPhone pic of a local brewery owner standing in front of her business' sign:



Pretty basic. But it's captivating, in a simple way -- in that you can see the humility and pride in ownership on her face. She's representative of how most people are -- ambitious, bright and modest. We've simultaneously helped raise awareness of this woman's business and our region.

4) Always listen, for presidents, and, for sheep.
Twitter is built like the inverse of a search engine algorithm. It knows what you like to see -- and it's going to put things up on your wall that you should, theoretically, be interested in. From our behavior, Twitter "knows" we like regional stories, so we've got a living, breathing feed of what's going on in the area. Obama is coming to the region? That's something I want to know about. A wily Barbados Mouflon Sheep has evaded the authorities for weeks and is scaling buildings while roaming rampant in your research park? Now that's an interesting story worth sharing.

5) Fear nothing.
It seems like a lot of companies are afraid of social media. Don't be afraid. Just stay away from controversial topics like sex, drugs, religion, politics and you'll be good. Be interesting and understand that from time to time, you'll offend someone. They'll get over it.

6) Shiv, shiv away.
Want to get your story featured in a publication or make a new business connection? Lob a message at a stranger on LinkedIn. Tweet at them. Take a jab. Anything goes -- as long as you're polite and compelling, you don't know what kind of response you'll get. I've gotten legitimate business leads this way, as well as press mentions.

7) Don't hire the hungover intern (for this particular job).
I'd like to think that this one has been figured out already, but if you're a major company, you should be investing in a major social media manager. This is the reputation of your brand we're talking about here.

8) Don't ask for "their" permission.
I'm a fan of Alexis Ohanian, and his latest book makes a great point for intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs everywhere: don't ask for permission. Don't wait for permission. We never asked -- we just saw a need and got started right away in telling a digital narrative.

9) Be excited or else. Energy, even on social, is contagious.
If you're excited about your content, chances are, someone else will be too. Picking on the tech industry a bit here -- but no one cares about your "enterprise java beans." Talk about them in a fun metaphorical vignette related to coffee, and they might.

10) Don't get (too) flabby.
This sounds absolutely horrible, I know. But social media "brand representatives" are the news anchors of the future and physical appearance is one of those unspoken and unfair factors. Believe you me -- I hate it more than you do. #InTheGymSixDaysAWeek.

To learn more about the The Research Triangle Park and community-driven events, visit their website and be sure to connect with them on Twitter!

Photos courtesy of Erin Monday.

#MoreWomenInTech Is NOT Just About Calling for More Women Developers

I have filters setup to be able to see articles, blog posts, etc., being tweeted or shared about women in tech. I check this stream out daily. I would say on average there is about one or two new articles or ideas being shared every day. BUT, they all continue to say similar things about why we need more women in tech. Why is everyone saying the same thing? Doesn't anyone have their own brain and own way of thinking about this problem?

I wrote about this in another post but I want to get more people thinking about why there are less women in tech BUT I want to approach it from a different angle.

The reason why there are less women in technology jobs is because not all women know that jobs exist in tech that they can do. Women in tech come in different forms than only being someone who can code or develop. I am not a developer. I don't know how to code software. I can't build a single line of code. I also don't really want to be able to. There are jobs out there in the tech and startup space that women can thrive at. The thing that bothers me is that the media just keeps talking about how we need more women who can code, how we need more developers who are women. Why are we just focusing on those jobs? There are other roles that women can have at technology companies and at startups. A company is a company is a company. Right? Just because we are labeling a company a technology company doesn't mean they don't have jobs for women who can't code. We should start to focus on what types of jobs women can succeed at in the tech world.

Working at a tech company or a startup is a fast-paced life style.

Some women really want this type of environment. I personally know it is hard to come by in the corporate world. Working at a startup is fast paced. It is always changing. No really, everything is always changing. if you like that type of work environment then maybe tech is for you.

Working as a women in tech is not work. It is fun and it is a lifestyle choice.

Working as a women in tech is also something that you should recognize will change the way you live. Most people who work in tech or in startups are not working just to work. Just because you have to work to make a pay check. You are doing this because you like, no love what you do. You are working at a startup or a tech company because you believe strongly in what your company is solving for. If you really live and breathe the vision of your company you will make work a lifestyle and not just a way of making money. At HubSpot, for example, we don't work 9:00-5:00. People work when they want to or need to work. I can work from wherever I want, however I want if I consistently hit my goals and do my job well. There is a lot more freedom that you have when you work in the tech space. Your work is more fluid when working at a technology company or startup compared to a corporate environment.

Work fast. Work hard.

People always say working at a startup or technology company is fast paced. Yes, it is. If you don't like that then you wouldn't want to work in tech. But, for myself as an example, I am a fast person even when I am not at work. I don't know how to sit still. I don't know how to turn my brain off and not think about anything. if you are constantly going, constantly thinking about things and love to work hard all the time then you should think about startups and tech. You will work hard, you will work fast.

Culture. Culture. Culture.

Culture is a lot more important than I think we make it out to be. I know more than ever people and companies are posting culture decks and talking about their culture. Culture is really important to the happiness of your employees. If you don't have a great culture where people enjoy coming to work everyday then you won't have happy employees. Those unhappy employees won't do as well as they would if they were happy in a culture that fostered happiness. In the corporate world it seems like everyone is always complaining, always bored, just doing things to do things. I didn't like that culture at all. I wanted something where I could feel awake and happy all the time. I wanted a culture that fit with my personality. One that was supportive, friendly, hard working. You will find that in technology and at startups because they hire for culture fit. Find a company where your personality is a match for culture. Sometimes just having the grades, having the resume is not enough. Culture is part of a hiring matrix at startups and technology companies.

Support groups make women more successful.

Startups and technology companies seem to have awesome support groups. Usually there are different subsets of people popping up doing cool things. There might be a developer group that gets together on Monday nights to brew beer. There might be a group or support reps who go to a speaking seminar every week. There might be a group of women sales reps who get drinks once a month and have a speaker come in to talk. When I worked in the corporate world we never had these kinds of things. In startups you have people with similar interests, similar things in common so groups start popping up. There are so many different groups of people at HubSpot I can't even name them all here. But some include sports groups like ski groups, public speaking groups, learn to code groups, women in sales groups, etc. All these groups were formed to support like minded people and help these groups of people grow. Having a strong support group or people around you that support your vision and goals is important in helping you get to where you want to be.

You can make a good living in technology or startups.

Technology jobs pay good money. If you are trying to get out of that 9:00-5:00 job that pays $35k then you might want to start a career in tech or startups. You can work your way up at startups. You can work your way from nothing to something and make good money while doing it. Also, the skills you learn as a sole contributor to a startup or technology company could be really important to helping you make more money down the line or do something bigger like start your own company one day. The skills and the network you build at your first jobs in tech and startups will help you grow into other roles and other companies over time. Working in tech and in startups will help you grow financially and mentally.

We need to stop talking about just getting more developers and more engineers into the tech space. There are so many types of jobs that startups and tech companies can offer women. Women are good at lots of different things and we need to present the world with those types of opportunities. We as women in tech need to step up and help make what we do known to women who are not in tech. Some of those women not in tech might be one day if we expose them to the types of roles they could have in technology companies. We need to expose women to the benefits of working in the tech space. I want to highlight different types of roles that women have in technology and startups in some of my next posts. I am hopeful that women will share their stories as to what they do as a #womenintech so that more women know that you don't have to be a developer to work in technology. We don't just need women who can code in tech jobs we need all kinds of women with all kinds of skills. That will help us all to enable more women to get into tech.

For those women in tech or startups out there reading this -- please contact me and let me know what you do and why you do it. We all want to hear from you and more importantly we need to expose these roles to women who are not in tech so they might want to get into tech after hearing about them. #morewomenintech should be an initiative around exposure to jobs in tech not to just for getting more developers or having more women learn to code. We are setting a stereotype that for a woman to be in tech they must be a developer or must know how to code. Let's make it known that there are all kinds of women in tech and share their stories.

How to Get a Busy Person to Respond to Your Email

5 Rules for Good Email Etiquette:

Some days I get hundreds of emails a day. It really sucks.

The worst part is that most of the emails are important and I physically can't respond to all of them.

They might be emails from students of One Month Rails who are frustrated -- I want to help them out. Other times they're from people who have read my posts and want to meet up. Or they're just from friends.

My personal policy is to read every single email I get. That means every day I have to set aside at least an hour to go through all my email and decide what urgently needs to be responded to and what doesn't.

In an effort to help people cut through the noise with their emails, and hopefully free up a little bit of my time, I wanted to share a few tips that I've found are helpful when writing to people who are inundated with email.

1) Keep it short

If you can keep an email to less than 2 or 3 sentences, it's much easier to read it right then. If your email is longer than a paragraph or two, people will often put off reading it and it will probably take you longer to get a response.

Here's a really long email I got recently (you don't have to read all of it, just skim it):

Hi Mattan,

My name is (redacted), I am recent graduate originally from California but am currently living in (redacted) and am looking for work. I have a Bachelors Degree in Accounting, but am not having much luck finding work in that field and to be honest with you I am struggling with the idea of being an accountant as a career. I sort of always had that thought in the back of my mind while in school but stuck with it because I think it is a skill set that is often overlooked by young entrepreneurs, which is more of what I see myself as.

Today on the news here they ran a segment stating that multiple companies within the city of (redacted) are looking for coders. I have always been interested in the idea of coding but have very limited experience. The extent of my experience in coding comes from creating some macros in the visual basic editor in Microsoft Excel, which I found to be quite enjoyable.

I checked out the website that was advertised and I think this may be something I want to pursue. I was wondering if you could offer me some advice on where to begin. Here is the website in case you want to check it out: (redacted)

After looking through the minimum requirements I see that I am lacking the following:

- development experience
- familiar with an at least one imperative (C/C++, Java, Javascript, C#, Python, Ruby, etc.) or functional language (Haskell, Scala, F#, Clojure, etc)
- Understand basic control structures and elements of programs like loops, variables, functions, and potentially objects and classes.

First thing that I did after seeing the requirements was type in "how to code" on YouTube and that is how I came across you and your talk "How to Teach Yourself Code". What I am wondering is if the advice from the video still applies today and if Rails is still the way to go or where you would start if you were in my situation. One extra thing to consider is that my PC is in California and at the moment all I have access to is my chromebook. Will this be sufficient to get started or will I need something with a traditional OS?

Sorry for such a long introductory email, but I hope you get a chance to read this and respond.

Thank-you for the video and talk, I will be diving into more of the details you discussed in the coming days.

Hopefully some of that snow in NY is starting to melt!

Whoa -- this is way too much work to read. You could take all the info above and boil it down into three simple sentences:

Hi Mattan,

I just saw your "How to Teach Yourself to Code" talk from Internet Week but noticed it was recorded almost two years ago. Does your advice in the video still apply?

If so, can I use a Chromebook or will I need something with a more traditional OS?

That's better. I know that a lot of the background info is missing, but people tend to think that they need to provide way more info than the reader actually needs.

2) Format for readability and clarity

It's easier to read emails that are broken down into one or two sentences per paragraph than long paragraphs.

Here's an example of an unformatted email I got recently:

Hi Mattan,

I took your April skillshare omrails class. It was a great intro class. Currently I'm following your advise by doing the Hartl tutorial. I have a question if you can give me some suggestions. Is there an equivalent to Hartl's Rails tutorial for iPhone app development? My personal goal is to create a Rails website for my wife's jewelry business, then an iPhone app to go along with the website idea. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Do you see how it's really hard to read? You can't skim it and have to do a lot more work to figure out what he or she is actually saying. Here's one that would have worked way better:

Hi Mattan,

Thanks for the One Month Rails class! I'm following your advice by doing the Michael Hartl Ruby on Rails Tutorial.

Quick question: Do you know of any classes like the Hartl Tutorial but for iPhone apps?

The second is way easier to read and figure out what exactly the person is asking you. Break your paragraphs down into shorter sentences, separate your call to action, and use bold/italics for emphasis and to draw the readers attention to the important parts.

3) Make it clear what you want me to do

Nothing drives people crazier than an email where someone sends over a lot of information but doesn't say what they'd like you to do. I often respond to those immediately by asking: What do you want me to do?

Do you want me introduce you to someone? Do you want me read your blog post and give you feedback? Do you want me to respond with whether I'll be able to attend an event? Be clear and say it explicitly up front.

Here's a really unclear email I got recently:

I just got done watching your presentation on computer programming I'm 14 and wanted to learn it's something I've always wanted to do. Couldyou please help me in any way possible I really want you to respond.

The call to action here is just "help me," but I really have no idea what that means and how to respond to it. Compare the email above to something more concrete:

Hi Mattan,

I'm 14 and want to learn about programming. What's the #1 resource you'd recommend?

If you must send a long email with a lot of information, put the call to action up at the top. Something like: "I'm sending this email to see if you can attend the event below. Just respond with a 'Yes' or 'No'."

This also helps the reader decide if they should forward the email to someone else, which they do often if they're used to delegating tasks.

4) Be reasonable with your request

It's so easy these days to send off an email in 30 seconds that would take someone over an hour to respond to.

Please don't tell me to go to your startup's website and give you feedback. To actually give your product or website a thorough review and analyze it in a way that is useful actually takes a lot of work.

If I can respond to something in less than two minutes, I'll do it immediately. What do you want feedback on? The business model? The color of your button? The text? Be specific and reasonable.

Here's an example of one of the bigger tasks people often ask me to do for them:

Hi Mattan,

(redacted) here. You don't know me, but your post on getting accepted to YC fired me up just now.

Having just submitted a late application to YC myself (as a single non-technical founder) I was curious if you might give me some feedback on my application. It hasn't been rejected yet. And my company's been featured in Popular Mechanics (attached), Fox Business (video link) and has 300+ paying customers...so I'd like to believe I have a shot. But getting a YC alum's opinion would be really eye-opening.

(Then they attached their 1,000+ word application)

If you want someone's feedback on something, be concrete and ask a specific question that can be answered in a few minutes.

Please don't expect the reader to do the work to figure out what you want them to do. I consider that lazy. Don't ask "What do you think we could do to get more customers?"

On the same note, don't email someone asking to pick their brain about something.

I was wondering if my cofounder and I could take you to dinner/lunch, we'd love to tell you what we're working on and pick your brain.

"Brain picking" meetings are extremely exhausting because they don't have a concrete goal and you spend most of the time trying to figure it out. Usually they're a sign that the person emailing isn't really sure what they want, they just want to meet in person.

Here's my typical response to both of the emails above:

Sorry --  I can't meet up in-person -- but I'm happy to help. So email me any question anytime. I'm not good with big general, "Here's my entire situation -- what do you think of it?" kinds of questions, but pretty good with specific questions.

In order of priority and amount of work involved, here's what I usually agree to:

i) Giving short response -- "Thank you ☺" or "That means a lot"
ii) Answering a specific question -- if I can do it in less than 2 minutes
iii) Getting on a quick Skype / Google hangout / phone call -- usually 15 minutes or so
iv) Grabbing a coffee in person -- usually 45 minutes

This means that if you ask to meet up for coffee but I think we could do it over Skype, I'll push for that instead.

5) Show me why I should take the time to help you

Honestly, this sounds harsh but it's important.

In the past, I tried to meet up with everyone who emailed me.

I agreed to coffees and lunches, listened to a lot of stories and gave a good deal of advice about what I thought they should be doing. Then I'd inevitably be frustrated when people didn't listen to any of my advice. Or they'd argue with me about why I'm wrong.

Sometimes they'd come back to me a month or two later and just ask me the same questions. It felt like Groundhog Day.

These days I try to prioritize the people who I think I'm going to be able to help out the most.

The best way to figure that out is to see whether you've done something awesome in the past, something that indicates that you'll be doing awesome things in the future.

I often check people's LinkedIn profiles through Rapportive when they email me -- I'll see where they're working, where they went to school, and what their deal is.

For example, I've learned that people who are currently working in finance but thinking about "starting their own startup" are almost always a red flag. (No offense to finance itself, I studied finance.)

Going to a good school is a plus. Working at a startup I've heard of is a plus. Being a consultant or running a small company is usually a minus.

If you don't have anything yet in terms of experience, then put together a good looking website (not a deck) that makes it look like you put some real thought into what you're trying to do.

These are just a few of my thoughts about good email etiquette. What kind of tricks do you use for getting people to respond? What do you hate about when people email you? Post them in the comments.

Mattan Griffel is founder & CEO at One Month, creators of the #1 bestselling Ruby on Rails online training program One Month Rails for first-time web app developers. Learn more at mattangriffel.com.

Do CIOs Need Passion To Succeed? Analysts Debate

You probably wouldn't be surprised to find the words "passion", "emotion" and "sexy" in a Valentine's Day card this week, but would you have imagined that they would be the topic of our most recent CXOTalk show? (On a side note, even more surprising may have been the outfit that my co-host, Michael Krigsman, donned for this special episode... You need to see it to believe it!)


Ray Wang, Esteban Kolsky, Louis Columbus


Joined by three of the smartest and brightest analysts in the world - R "Ray" Wang of Constellation Research, Esteban Kolsky of thinkJar and Louis Columbus of Plex Systems (and one of my favorite Forbes technology contributors) - we debated the topic of how to move enterprise software from boring to sexy. For a conversation that was definitely far from boring, and ranged from combative to comical, one fact that these all-star analysts agreed upon is that for 2014 digital is leading the current change in technology and smart CIOs will realize it and make it part of their strategy.

This is a very exciting time for enterprise software because for the first time in its history customer responsiveness is important and achievable with digital technologies. Strong, responsive, high-energy, customer-focused service is what delivers value and makes a company sexy and this is being enabled by the digital transformation. What's more is that all the data inside these systems is now being made available to give business new insights.


Here are 5 hot themes for 2014 that CIOs will want to keep in mind as they head into the age of digital:


1. All great things are accomplished with passion - Columbus feels that passion is incredibly powerful and says if you can align someone's personal goals with the company goals, you are golden. "Technology becomes the enabler of aligning people with their passions, and the best companies and best leaders find the intersection of what someone is best at and what has the greatest opportunity to deliver value to the company," says Columbus. He adds that the CEO needs to be the servant to everyone in the company to enable passion and what separates great leaders from the rest, is to know how to unleash great passion for the company goals.

To put it lightly, Kolsky is not sold on the idea of bringing emotions into business and he challenged the other analysts to point to a company where everyone is passionate about delivering great products and service. He argues that the only time a consumer shows passion is when they hate a company. He does agree that if passion has a place anywhere, it's at the CXO level, because passion enables leaders to drive change faster.

Wang feels that passion is the catalyst for transformation and that digital is getting people excited about making a change. He says there is a need to find leaders that are passionate to help drive change and agrees with Kolsky that passion applies at the CXO level and says that companies need to ask how they can create the process to make passion happen. "If we could just get 20% of the workforce to have it, maybe they would infect others?" he points out.

One thing they all agree on is that the companies that have passion are "kicking butt right now". "Look at the Salesforce.com Partner Ecosystem at Dreamforce," says Columbus, "They are running on passion, not dollars." Great examples of companies that come to my mind for sparking passion through an emphasis on corporate culture are Netflix and HubSpot.

2. The best CIOs are the business strategists - Columbus says the highest paid and best CIOs are focusing on developing a robust strategy to grow their business and he points to Intel CIO, Kim Stevenson as a case in point. They way Stevenson aligns her priorities to the business strategies of the company going forward has enabled Intel to revolutionize themselves into entirely new businesses. The CIOs of today want to be the CEOs of tomorrow and to do that they need to become business strategists. Those companies that can bring the customer directly into the purchasing process show the greatest potential for growth because they realize that people are driving the digital transformation. "If you can engage and show the value of people, I think that retains the value of the software as well," Columbus adds.

3. Job titles and responsibilities are changing - In the world of enterprise software CEOs are becoming CDOs, CIOs are becoming marketers and CIOs are doing the CMO job. The people in those jobs are trying to figure out the best way to change and they realize that the rules don't apply anymore. Traditional roles are being converged because the business requirements are changing and the people with passion are taking up other roles to adapt to the changing business needs.

Klosky says we need to transform the business to adapt to society or we will die. It's not about technology, but about changing the business to reflect the way the world is moving. Perhaps this is the reason for the rise of the CDO role? "The bottom line that every executive needs to understand is that the business needs to transform to adapt to society, marketplace and workplace changes, whether they want it or not," says Kolsky. And if this means changing roles, then so be it.

4. We have to learn how to scale - Columbus says that to scale a business you need intelligent people, who are motivated over the long term. He makes reference to Dan Pink's book, Drive, which brings up the fact that even in third world nations; ownership wins out over money in importance to people. Therefore, if you are going to scale an intelligence-based business, there is a real need to deal with fluffy issues like passion and emotional engagement. "Companies have to earn the right to sell again, that is why customer relationships are so important," says Columbus.

5. Get your head into the cloud - Kolsky says the "private cloud is a crowd" and that cloud should only be open. "Private cloud is a CIOs way of saying they are addressing a problem that they are not really addressing," says Kolsky. Columbus says the cloud, which is all about speed, agility and aligning IT assets to business strategy, becomes relevant when it becomes responsive to business needs. Wang sees cloud as being one piece of many pieces as we go digital - how it interfaces with mobile, what it does with social and what you can do with cloud and big data.

Well, I'm not sure if our show solved the dilemma of how to make enterprise software sexy, we may need to call on Cupid for some help with that one, but one thing is for sure, when it comes to passion for all things technology, these three guys have it! The bottom line for C-level executives is that the ones that sizzle with passion will drive the digital change faster and put their companies on top.

We wrapped up our show by asking our three analysts to give is their top 3 tech spend priorities for CIOs for the next 2 years. Here's what they had to say:

• Columbus: 1. Analytics, 2. Cloud- based technology, and 3. Security


• Wang: 1. Analytics, 2. Helping IT professionals understand business, and 3. Building back your own App-Dev shop


• Kolsky: 1. Commoditized cloud, 2. An outcome-based approach to invest in data and analytics, and 3. Creating an infrastructure to allow people to build their own experiences to transform the business

You can watch the full interview with our All-Star Analysts here. Please join me and Michael Krigsman every Friday at 3PM EST as we host CXOTalk - connecting with thought leaders and innovative executives who are pushing the boundaries within their companies and their fields.

7 Reasons Why You Will Never Do Anything Amazing With Your Life

Yeah that's right, you heard me... I'm talking to you... I'm calling you out.

I'm looking you in the eyes (OK well, not really since you are probably reading this article, but figuratively, I am burning a cyclops type hole in your face right now) and telling you that you don't stand a chance.

I'm telling you that if you can read this article, look through this list and not claim it as your own, then you should be a little worried.

Actually, you should be very worried. You should drop everything and immediately question your existence on earth. You should find a mirror, look yourself in the eyes, raise your hand and slap yourself in the face.

Got it? Now repeat that until you come to your senses and continue reading whenever you're ready.

I'm Talkin' Bout Street Skill, Son!

I'm not talking about the study hard, party light, graduate-top-of-your-class skills.

I'm not even talking about the slack-off, skip class, smoke weed, drink and party but still graduate skill-set your $50,000+ diploma has lead you to believe you have.

I'm talking bout step out your door, make some moves, and get-some-shit-done kinds of skills! Some move-out-your-mama's-house, quit your job, say "fuck the world" and then actually go do it kinds of skills.

The kinds of skills you develop in the real world, outside the bubble of your parents protection or the ideological indoctrination that has overwhelmed our entire educational system.

Skills that can be had by anyone willing to pay the price to get them. Skills that are quickly becoming extinct.

I'm talking bout skills that cannot be taught in a classroom or in a textbook. Skills you can only learn by doing; by learning how to fly after jumping off the cliff.

Skills that can only be developed when you find your true self. When you put yourself on the line or otherwise expose yourself to the possibility of failure.

The skills you can only develop when you are willing to risk it all in order to do that one amazing thing.

Skills that up until now, you thought you had.

"Basically, what I am trying to tell you is that, in this game called life, you don't stand a chance...

1) Because You Have Not Failed Enough

Because you are comfortable in your mediocrity; because you choose not to try.

Because it is easier to talk about learning that new (programming?) language as opposed to actually learning it.

Because you think everything is too hard or too complicated so you will just "sit this one out" or maybe you'll "do it tomorrow"!

Because you hate your job but won't get a new one; because it is easy to reject rejection.

Because while you're sitting around failing to try, I am out there trying to fail, challenging myself, learning new things and failing as fast as possible.

Because as I fail, I learn, and then adjust my course to make sure my path is always forward. Like the process of annealing steel, I've been through the fire and pounded into shape. The shape of a sword with polished edges and a razor sharp blade that will cut you in half if you are not equally hardened.

2) Because You Care What Others Think About You

Because you have to fit in.

Because you believe that being different is only cool if you're different in the same way that other people are different.

Because you are afraid to embrace your true self for fear of how the world will see you. You think that because you judge others, this means that those people must, in-turn, be judging you.

Because you care more about the stuff you have as opposed to the things you've done.

Because while you're out spending your money on new outfits, new cars, overpriced meals or nights at the bar, I'll be investing in myself. And while you try to fit in with the world I'll make the world fit in with me.

Because I will recklessly abandon all insecurities and expose my true self to the world. I will become immune to the impact of your opinion and stand naked in a crowd of ideas; comfortable in knowing that while you married the mundane I explored the exceptional.

3) Because You Think You Are Smarter Than You Are

Because you did what everyone else did; you studied what they studied and read what they read.

Because you learned what you had to learn in order to pass their tests and you think that makes you smart.

Because you think learning is only something people do in schools.

Because while you were away at college, I was studying life. Because instead of learning about the world in a classroom I went out and learned it by living.

Because I know more than any piece of paper you could ever frame from a university. Because smart is not what you learn, it's how you live.

Because I might not have a degree but I challenge you to find a topic that I can't talk to you about cohesively.

Because I could pass your tests if I had to, but you couldn't stand for a single second in the face of the tests that life has thrown me. Tests that are not graded on a bell curve or by percentages; tests that are graded by one simple stipulation: survival!

4) Because You Don't Read

Because you read the things you are required to read or nothing at all.

Because you think history is boring and philosophy is stupid.

Because you would rather sit and watch E! or MTV instead of exploring something new, instead of diving head first into the brain of another man in an attempt to better understand the world around you.

Because you refuse to acknowledge that all the power in the world comes from the words of those that lived before us. That anything you desire can be had by searching through the multitude of words that are available to us now more abundantly than ever before.

Because you are probably not reading this article even though you know you should.

Because the people that are reading this already know these things.

Because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

5) Because You Lack Curiosity

Because you get your news from copy-cat members of the state-controlled media.

Because you are unwilling to ask this simple question... "What if it's all a lie?" and accept the possibility that maybe it is; that just maybe, the methods of mass media are under direct orders to: keep you distracted.

Because you call me a know-it-all but refuse to call yourself a know-nothing-at-all.

Because I thirst for knowledge, regardless the topic.

Because while you're busy playing Candy Crush or Megalopolis, I am reading about string theory and quantum mechanics.

Because while you waste your time with Tosh.o I am learning how to edit video, build websites and design mobile apps.

Because if we were to go heads-up in a debate, I would crush you. I would make it a point to defeat my own argument; from every imaginable angle; in order to understand everything you might be able to use against me.

Because I would dedicate myself to understanding both sides of the argument so thoroughly that I could argue your side for you and win; even after having just handed you a defeat in the same debate.

6) Because You Don't Ask Enough Questions

Because you do not question authority.

Because you don't question yourself.

Because you don't understand the power of properly placed questioning in life, respectful disagreements and standing up for what you know to be right in the face of someone telling you otherwise. Unable to question reality; stuck in a self imposed survival strategy within a matrix-style monotony.

Because I know that you will give me all the information I need to destroy you by letting you talk.

Because I study human behaviors and you ignore everyone but yourself.

Because I watch how you say the things you say just as closely as I listen to what you say; and you say way too much!

Because control comes, not from spewing your ignorance like some incurable case of logorrhea, but from properly structuring the context of your questions.

Because I study the premise of your argument and destroy it from the ground level before you even get a chance to establish your ideas.

7) Because You Can't Handle The Truth

Because you refuse to admit that you don't even know the things you don't know.

Because there isn't an article online that would make up for all the time you have wasted in life.

Because even if I told you everything could be different tomorrow you would wait until then to begin doing anything about it.

Because even when you think I'm not, I'm aware of my surroundings.

Because you think that since I have not acknowledged you, it means that I have not seen you.

Because, you walk around with your head up your ass, oblivious to the world around you. Blissfully ignorant of the reality that sits so close to your face that if you stuck your tongue out, just once, you would taste it and realize how delicious the truth actually is.

Because you would become an instant addict. Unable to pull yourself from the teat of truth. Finally able to understand your lack of understanding, and then you would see; then you would know that the only thing holding you back from doing something truly amazing, is you.

This article first appeared on Raymmar's website: raymmar.com

How to Stop Giving a F@$% What People Think

We're all guilty.

Every day from the moment we wake up, we live our lives caring what other people think of us.

We accept the status quo for what it is because everyone around us does.

We tip toe our way through life by doing things in order to please others, not because it's what we believe in. Eventually our actions, appearances, and lives become molded by how we think other people perceive us.

How are these pants going to make me look? What will my colleagues think if I spoke out? Are those people talking shit behind my back? If I take this job, what will my friends and family think of me?

Just writing that paragraph alone gave me a headache...

It's exhausting. It's dreadful. It has to stop.

Living a life that follows the ideal notions of what other people think is a terrible way to live. It makes you become the spineless spectator who waits for other people to take action first. It makes you become a follower.

Worst of all, it makes you become someone who doesn't take a stand for anything.

Today is the last day we live a life dictated by others. Today, we're going to get to the bottom of the truth. Today is the day we stop giving a F@$%.

_______________

No one really cares

Believe it or not, we're not that special.

We go through our days thinking about how other people might be judging us. But the truth is -- those people are thinking the exact same thing.

No one in today's "smartphone crazed" society has time in their schedule to think more than a brief second about us. The fact of the matter is, when we do have time get our thoughts straight, we're too busy thinking about ourselves and our own shortcomings -- not others.

A study done by the National Science Foundation claims that people have on average 50,000-plus thoughts a day. This means that even if someone thought about us ten times in one day, it's only 0.02 percent of their overall daily thoughts.

"You'll worry less about what people think about you when you realize how seldom they do." -- David Foster Wallace

It is a sad but simple truth that the average person filters their world through their ego, meaning that they think of most things relating to "me" or "my." This means that unless you have done something that directly affects another person or their life, they are not going to spend much time thinking about you at all.

I've always enjoyed watching performers trying to hustle some change at the New York City train stations. These guys simply don't give a F@$%.

But the more interesting observation I made is how the spectators react. Rather than watching the actual performers, most people are looking around to see how other people are reacting. If people were laughing, they would start laughing too. But if people weren't paying attention, they would also pay no mind.

Even when provided the blatantly obvious opportunity to judge someone, people are still thinking about how others may perceive them.

Once you understand that this is how people's mind works, it's a big step towards freedom.

You can't please everyone

It's impossible to live up to everyone's expectations.

There will always be people -- no matter what we say or how we treat them -- that will judge us. Whether you're at the gym, at work, taking the train, or even online playing Call of Duty. Even now it's happening. You will never be able to stop people from judging you, but you can stop it from affecting you.

Think about the worst thing that could possibly happen when someone is judging you or what you're doing.

I guarantee that chances are -- nothing will happen. Absolutely nothing. No one is going to go out of their busy lives to confront us, or even react for that matter. Because as I mentioned before, no one actually cares. What will happen, is that these people will actually respect you for claiming your ground. They may disagree with you, but they'll respect you.

Start standing up for what you believe in -- causes, opinions, anything. You're going to have people that disagree with you anyways, so why not express how you truly feel?

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something in life."-- Winston Churchill

I've learned that it's better to be loved by a few people you care about, than to be liked by everyone. These are family, friends, spouse -- the people who love you for who you are, and the people who will be there for you during your worst times. Focus on these people. They're the only people that matter.

You reap what you sow

Worrying too much about what other people think can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the way we think starts to become the way we behave. These individuals become people-pleasers and overly accommodating to others, thinking it will stop them from being judged.

In fact, the opposite is true. Most people don't like push-overs and are turned off by it. The behavior we use in an attempt to please others, can actually cause the opposing effect.

If how we think affects our behaviors, then how we behave affects who we attract.

This means that if you're a push-over, then you're going to be attracting others in your life who are also push-overs. Vice versa.

This can be quite a dangerous path to go down if you don't recognize its consequences.

It's been said that we are the average of the five people we hang out with the most. When we start to attract and associate with the same people that share our weaknesses -- we're stuck. We stop growing, because there's no one to challenge us to be better. We start thinking that this is the norm and we remain comfortable. This is not a place you want to be.

Now let's talk about the cure. Here are five ways to stop giving a F@$%.

Reclaiming your freedom

1. Know your values

First and foremost. You need to know what's important to you in life, what you truly value, and what you're ultimately aiming for. Once you know who you really are and what matters to you, what other people think of you become significantly less important. When you know your values, you'll have something to stand up for -- something you believe in.

You'll stop saying yes to everything. Instead, you'll learn to say no when friends pressure you to go bar-hopping, or when a tempting business opportunity that distracts you from your business.

When you have your values straight, you have your shit straight.

2. Put yourself out there

Now that you know what your values are, it's time to put yourself out there.

This can be done several ways. Here are a few suggestions:

• Blogging


• Wearing a polka-dot sweater


• Public speaking


• Flirting/asking someone out

Keep in mind that when you're doing any of these activities, you have to speak your mind. Be honest with yourself and what you share, because the world doesn't need another conflict-avoider who does what everyone else does.

3. Surround yourself with pros

Surround yourself with people who are self-assured, and live life without comprising their core values. These people will rub off on you quickly.

One of my best friends, Cody, has been a big influence on me. Having spent the summer with him, I've observed countless times where he strongly voiced his opinion on controversial topics. What I learned was that he was simply voicing opinions that people already had in their heads, but were too afraid to voice. People admired him for being so honest and direct, even when they disagreed with his views.

Thanks for not giving a F@$%, Cody.

4. Create a "Growth List"

OK, now we're getting personal.

I haven't told anyone this, but I have this list called the "Growth List."

A Growth List is comprised of all the things in life that makes you uncomfortable. These are fears, insecurities -- anything that gives you the jitters.

Here's how it works.

You start by writing all the things that make you feel uncomfortable.

Then one-by-one, you do them. Once you complete the task, you move on to the next. Repeat.

My first growth task was taking a cold shower (The Flinch). I turned the water as cold as it could get, and I could feel my body shake before I even entered the shower.This was the inner bullshit voice in my head talking.

It was hard at first. But surprisingly, it got easier the second time. Then even easier the third time. Before I knew it, my body stopped shaking -- I was no longer uncomfortable, I've conquered my fear.

This exercise does wonders. I have yet to find a better way to get out of my comfortable zone. You can read all the books in the world about being confident or getting over your fears, but if you don't take action, you're just someone who's read how to ride a bicycle without ever having ridden one.

5. Travel alone

If you're looking for an ultimate transformation that combines all of the points above, you should travel alone. Traveling with other people can be fun, but you won't get the opportunity to truly get out of your comfort zone.

You'll be exposed to different social cultures, break social norms that you didn't even know existed, and ultimately be forced to burst out of your small bubble.

Bring as little as possible, and fit everything into one backpack. Plan nothing, except for a one-way flight ticket to your destination -- figure everything else out when you're there. Trust me, you'll be just fine.

It won't be easy initially, but don't get discouraged. Being comfortable with the uncomfortable will grow with time. I continue to struggle with it everyday, as do many others. But you need to get started today.

The world is already full of people who obey the status quo.

But the people who don't give a F@$% are the ones that change the world.

Be the latter.

Start living life the way you want, be fearless like you once were as a child, and always, always stand up for the truth.

Someone has to.

This article was inspired by the work of Julien Smith & The Flinch. It first appeared on Medium.

What NASA Is For: Straight From the Panda's Mouth

A furious panda is a thing to behold.

Ordinarily, a panda seems to be superlatively peaceful, diffidently munching bamboo. But when it gets angry, it betrays its true nature -- it's fundamentally a carnivore trying to play itself off as a herbivore. And failing.

Last week, in Slate, I argued that NASA, like a panda, is maladapted and flirting with extinction as a result. (Panda bashing happens to be a proud Slate tradition.) The argument triggered outrage. Within hours, fueled by social media, the defense of NASA echoed around the nation, even reaching the White House. It was the anger of a panda -- and contrary to what NASA aficionados believe, their response confirms just how screwed-up the agency really is.

The fundamental problem isn't terribly hard to understand. The lion's share of NASA's budget -- and reputation -- is for launching people into space. This was sustainable when we were in a no-holds-barred race with the Soviets, but the moment Neil Armstrong took his first steps on the Moon, that race was over. Any human spaceflight beyond that (including the remaining Apollo missions, which started being scuttled one by one less than a year after the Eagle touched down) is anticlimax. So it will remain until a manned Mars mission becomes technologically and budgetarily feasible.

This left NASA with a dilemma. What NASA does really well -- remote missions -- at best attract some passing attention from the public (and from Congress) and quickly fade from public consciousness, even though they've resulted in fundamental advances in planetary science, astronomy, cosmology, physics, and Earth science. NASA's glory and continued success, on the other hand, comes almost entirely from the hurling-people-in-tin-cans-into-the-void trick, which hasn't had any real purpose since the early 1970s.

In other words, there's a gap between perception and reality, between what NASA does that's really worthwhile and what NASA perceives it must do to maintain its reputation and its budget. The last four decades of NASA's history are an attempt to bridge that gap with sleight of hand, to draw our attention away from that internal contradiction.

It does so by pretending that its astronauts are doing crucial scientific experiments while puttering around in low-Earth orbit. Despite NASA's incessant cooing over its "world-class" scientific work in space, the research on board the shuttle and the International Space Station has almost uniformly been of minimal importance. Science-wise, human spaceflight compares incredibly unfavorably on a dollar-for-dollar basis with even a fiscally bloated and physically crippled unmanned craft. Even a single lean, mean, successful project like Mars Pathfinder, which cost about $200 million (maybe $300 to $350 million in today's dollars), arguably yielded more for science than the entire multi-hundred-billion-dollar post-Apollo human spaceflight program. (Making matters worse, astronaut-run research has not just come at extraordinary fiscal expense but at grave human expense as well. As I point out in the Slate article, NASA has killed roughly 4 percent of the people it has sent into space -- yes, killed, through negligence and mismanagement.)

NASA also has had a few embarrassing episodes where it hyped bad terrestrial science as, well, ham-handed attempts to fill the gap by inflating the importance of a new field: astrobiology. (The term "astrobiology" is telling. "Astro" and "biology" are, at the moment, mutually exclusive; where you have one, you simply don't have the other. Hopefully, that will someday change and give the field a reason for its name.)

This sleight of hand is the core of the problem. Hype doesn't fill the gap between perception and reality, though, and the mismatch is growing bigger each year as remote technology improves, and as budgets tighten. Unless the agency can either find a human spaceflight mission that's worth the effort, expense, and danger or, better yet, realign its priorities so that it no longer has to dissemble about the value of more than half of the work that it does, then NASA is in danger. In short, NASA must figure out what it's really for.

This argument paints an unflattering picture of NASA, to be sure, and the reaction from NASA fans was as quick and fierce as a mother panda defending her cubs. Within a few hours, a NASA love-fest developed on Twitter, using the hashtag #WhatisNASAfor, to try to answer the question -- or at least prove that it's silly and presumptuous to ask it. Space fans, both civilian and insiders, joined in, and soon so did the government, including NASA itself.

So what does NASA think it's for? In 140 characters, how does America's space agency justify its existence? Here it is, straight from the panda's mouth:

#WhatIsNASAFor? Space technologies help you in more ways than you may know. Track space back to you: http://t.co/AHcB6UngRt

— NASA (@NASA) February 7, 2014

Spinoffs. Yes, really.

Any time you give a group of smart people lots of money to work together on technological problems, you're going to get unexpected discoveries and side benefits. Whether you're working on military systems, high-energy physics, digital imaging, or any other big high-tech problems, there will be spinoffs. But in all the world, it seems that only NASA thinks that spinoffs are a raison d'être rather than a natural consequence of doing something else well. Spinoffs (and new technology), especially medical spinoffs, figure prominently in the #WhatisNASAfor thread. Of course, if developing new medical technology is what NASA is for, that's a valid argument, but we should probably incorporate the agency into the Department of Health and Human Services.

Perhaps someone even higher up in government had a better idea. Luckily, the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy joined in too:

Part of #WhatIsNASAFor: The President visited a class that had "a lesson plan...around the Curiosity rover on Mars." http://t.co/5Hb1lkTgCg

— The White House OSTP (@whitehouseostp) February 7, 2014

It's a nice story, and the general theme of inspiring students and creating future STEM majors was also a salient theme in the #WhatisNASAfor thread. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that in no way do the educational benefits justify the $2.5-billion expense of the Curiosity mission. Don't misunderstand: Curiosity was well worth the money, not because it makes a great story for kids but because it's producing interesting planetary science. The educational value is a side benefit. In other words, NASA's educational value is fundamentally another kind of spinoff that follows directly from doing interesting things in space. And the vast majority of interesting things in space are done by robots, not humans. The infinite variations of water floating in space are cute, but it's a Mars panorama or a view of Saturn or even of the Sun that will trigger real awe -- and inspiration.

A few other NASA-related entities also chimed in; NASA's Launch Services Program at Cape Kennedy tweeted about "launching across our solar system," while NASA's Stennis Space Center used the opportunity to plug NASA's PR effort.

Largely missing was NASA's elephant in the room: its $100 to $200 billion-plus flagship, the International Space Station. As far as I can tell, there were only two governmental or official contributions that even mentioned the ISS. The first was CASIS, the organization that manages the International Space Station's laboratory facilities. It came out swinging, offering perhaps the only official tweet that attempted directly to refute the argument made in Slate.

The ISS: An amazing field lab producing good science & just beginning to show its long-term value #WhatIsNASAFor http://t.co/F2wfHH8pqw

— ISS National Lab (@ISS_CASIS) February 8, 2014

The other was ISS Research, NASA's mouthpiece for scientific research aboard the station. How is it contributing to NASA's purpose?

#WhatIsNASAFor @ISS_Research Benefits for Humanity video feature and article: http://t.co/Jbutzc65R1 #CleanWater #MedicalTech #Crops #Earth

— ISS Research (@ISS_Research) February 7, 2014

Spinoffs. Sigh.

The civilian contributions to #WhatisNASAfor tended to hit on similar themes. (The word cloud below represents relative frequencies of certain words in the part of the thread I captured, after meaningless phrases had been removed.)

Inspiration, education, tech spinoffs, and the sheer coolness of some of NASA's missions? Wonderful, but not ends in themselves. The need to escape the confines of the Earth, and the manifest destiny of colonizing space? After Apollo, this became unattainable in any meaningful way for quite a while to come.

What's left is science -- and science is where NASA's greatest achievements lie. NASA spacecraft are helping us answer some of the biggest questions in the universe. (Heck, I wrote an entire book describing a revolution in cosmology sparked, in part, by NASA programs like Hubble, WMAP, and COBE.) But that drive is fundamentally incompatible with the agency's perceived need to hype bad science and trying to convince the world that its astronautic boondoggles are producing world-class scientific achievements.

That's NASA's dilemma in a nutshell: despite all the agency has done, despite all it has to offer, so long as human spaceflight is at the core of NASA's existence, it will never evolve beyond a faint echo of its prior self.

Are You All A-Twitter?

I made a conscious decision recently about my writing. You see, I've covered technology, business-small and large, entrepreneurs, the Internet, software, wireless technology, rock 'n roll and more. I will continue writing about these things about which I am passionate.

However, I'm going to take a new thrust occasionally and that's into something I'm going to call "The Impact of Technology on Humanity." I will be asking myself, then researching and writing about three main things:

1) For established, broadly used technologies or apps, are these products helpful? Do they solve a problem quickly, efficiently and economically?

2) Is there identifiable hype--overstatement, embellishment or lies--around the technology and why we should be aware. In technology, there almost always is.

3) Where will the beginning technology go? How can it improve? What would work better for us humans?

What motivated me? You see, when I wrote my recent slamming of Facebook, I really researched the heck out of it and in that process, learned so much; not just about Facebook but about technology, about other peoples' use of it and about us as humans, struggling through our days and nights. "Is technology helping us or hurting us?" I wondered.

Now I love technology. Understand that. I'm also very suspicious of its lofty claims; ways in which it impacts our health; and very worried about what I call "Tech Stress" in our everyday lives using technology of all sorts.

So with that prologue, let me step into Twitter.

Full Definition of TWITTER

twit·ter verb ˈtwi-tər
Verb
1: to make fast and usually high sounds
2: to talk in a quick and informal way about unimportant things

Noun
1: the short, high sounds that birds make
2: a light, silly laugh
3: a trembling agitation, quiver
4: a small tremulous intermittent sound (as of birds)
5: a light chattering, a light silly laugh, giggle
Intransitive verb
1: to utter successive chirping noises
2: to talk in a chattering fashion, giggle, titter
3: to tremble with agitation, flutter
Transitive verb
1: to utter in chirps or twitters
2: to shake rapidly back and forth, flutter

Synonyms: babble, blab, cackle, chaffer [British], chatter, chin [slang], converse, gab, gabble, gas, jabber, jaw, kibitz (also kibbitz), natter, palaver, patter, prate, prattle, rap, rattle, run on, schmooze (or shmooze), talk, chat, visit Related Words: gossip, tattle; descant, discuss, expatiate; yak (also yack), yammer, yap
Near Antonyms: bawl, blubber, cry, sob, weep; howl, scream, squall, wail, yowl; bleat, pule, whimper, whine; sniffle, snivel; groan, moan, sigh

"The twitter of songbirds filled the air." "Our grandmother gets all in a twitter if she doesn't get her weekly phone call right on time."

Right, I think that sets the scene.

As I've said regularly here, I'm an 'early-adopter' of everything tech. Twitter is no different. I tried it in, let me guess here, about 2007. When I first tried it I thought, "Why in the world do I want to know that some businessman is having a slice of pizza at O'Hare? How does that help me put food on the table?" I thought then, and still think now, that I don't and it doesn't.

But don't let that stop you world. Everybody, let's get on Twitter and begin our omnipresent, never-ending stream-of-consciousness thread of "Where I am now," "Here's a cool article" or "Look at who I'm with." Of course to be fair to Twitter, it's become so much more important now covering things like, "Look what I think of Obama/Romney/Palin/Pelosi," "Look at this cool new technology I've discovered" or "Look what I did today." It all "look, look, look ... " all the time ... 24/7. As if anybody really cares. LOOK at me. Don't you see? Nobody does.




So to answer my question number one from above, "For established, broadly used technologies or apps, are these products helpful? Do they solve a problem quickly, efficiently and economically?" I have to respond that, "No, I'm sorry. Twitter doesn't solve any problem in my world."

The entire value proposition of Twitter is about vanity. And self-aggrandizement. And narcissism. There's nothing else there. "LOOK at me!" is what the investors invested in. Speaking of Twitter's investors, let us investigate who put more than $1.16 billion into the company (according to Crunchbase).

Series A, 7/2007
Charles River Ventures
Union Square Ventures
Marc Andreessen
Dick Costolo
Naval Ravikant
Ron Conway
Chris Sacca
Greg Yaitanes
Brian Pokorny
SV Angel
$5M

Series B, 5/2008
Union Square Ventures
Bezos Expeditions
Spark Capital
Digital Garage
Kevin Rose
Timothy Ferriss
$15M

Series C, 2/2009
Benchmark
Institutional Venture Partners
Spark Capital
Union Square Ventures
Charles River Ventures
Digital Garage
$35M

Series D, 9/2009
Insight Venture Partners
T. Rowe Price
Spark Capital
Benchmark
Institutional Venture Partners
Morgan Stanley
$100M

Series E, 1/2010
$5.17M

Series F, 12/2010
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
$200M

Series G, 8/2011
DST Global
DFJ Growth
Alwaleed Bin Talal
Chris Sacca
T. Rowe Price
$400M

Secondary Market Transaction, 9/2011
$400M

Now far be it from me to criticize these investors or the Twitter founders. What I am writing now are my opinions; educated or uneducated though they may be. I just happen to disagree with the entire proposition that Twitter should receive over one billion dollars in capital or have doubled or tripled revenue every year since 2010. Couldn't these savvy investors have invested in something that cures cancer or Parkinson's or something more beneficial to the world than Twitter? Can anybody say Webvan?

Since Twitter's IPO, these investors have undoubtedly become richer from their financial support of Twitter, a company with $664 million in 2013 revenue and a net loss of ... oh look!! ... a net loss of $645 million. How convenient; it's almost like an economic wash. After paying no taxes, foreign or domestic in 2013, Twitter has little to show for all the hype and could be considered to have never existed but for the ever-Tweeting public. One might ask whether Twitter is a contributor to the global economy and US tax base or a drain.


Wall Street: Twitter's Number One audience


Once a company goes public, the strong focus on their customers, innovation through R&D and most of the fun of running and working at a small company goes right out the window. Wall Street becomes the god they worship and it's an unforgiving, stern and mean god indeed, sucking all fun and spirit out of the organization. Only the stock price matters.

Prior to the Twitter' IPO, the only way the investors were going to get paid back was if some competitor like Google or Facebook or Microsoft or Yahoo! were to buy Twitter. Now as the Twitter' share value rises and falls with the fortunes of the company itself, the only salvation for these investors cum shareholders looking to further enrich themselves is still a trade sale. I've identified this malodorous situation as one of the key predecessors of a 'Dot-Com Bubble' or 'Tech-Wreck.' When a company has only two options for its continued success, to go public or be sold, and no potential for staying independent and becoming a profitable, 'built-to-last' enterprise, well then, there's another bubble already upon us.

And, I can imagine Twitter's investors saying to me upon reading this, "What do we care? We've already cashed-out." That's true. And if all you want to do is make money with no other goals, I'd say that's a pretty myopic and short-sighted mindset which can never result in your investing in and building anything that is ultimately worthwhile and long-lasting. Moving money from one person's pocket to another, is not an egalitarian process.

To put a fine point on Twitter's financials: I don't like them. Not one bit. With my limited financial and economic knowledge, I took a quick look at the MarketWatch financials for Twitter (TWTR).

Besides the horrifying losses and net sales figures, there were a few things that jumped out at me, stimulating my suspicions. First, Twitter's 2013 COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) was more than $268 million of their $664 million total revenue. To me, again with my limited knowledge, I find the COGS--how much it costs an enterprise to deliver its product, all-in--to be a crucial financial metric. And whenever there is malfeasance, it can often be due to an inflated COGS in order to reflect a loss and defraud investors/shareholders or allow the founders to live a lavish lifestyle. Now I know there are all kinds of costs and expenses thrown into the COGS, but I have a hard time believing that Twitter's COGS is 40% of total revenue when they have a preexisting product that costs virtually nothing to manufacture, having been 'manufactured' in 2006. If they were manufacturing a physical product like an iPhone, then alright, they would have significant, tangible expenses but how much does a Tweet cost to make?




Another financial worry was the SG&A line. "Selling, General and Administrative Expense" is defined as "all direct and indirect selling expenses and all general and administrative expenses of the company," by Investopedia. They also go to great lengths to highlight something I say above by saying, "High SG&A expenses can be a serious problem for almost any business. Examining this figure as a percentage of sales or net income compared to other companies in the same industry can give some idea of whether management is spending efficiently or wasting valuable cash flow." Twitter's 2013 SG&A Expense was $1.03 billion; $340 million more than it took in through the door in sales revenue. Hmmm ...



The last concern was the R&D (Research & Development) expense. With high-tech companies, their investment for R&D is crucial to their survival. Giants like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and others make these brobdingnagian investments because they have to. To remain competitive. And though they sometimes come up empty, there are generally some results they can point to after the expenditure. Twitter's financials indicate a 2013 R&D expense of $593 million. This, I cannot fathom. If I were a Twitter shareholder, I'd be all over this number. "So please Mr. Dorsey, can you tell us shareholders why this number is almost 90% of total revenue? And once you've done that, please inform us about the R&D results achieved." Nobody would want to receive that question in front of an annual shareholder meeting, least of all Jack Dorsey.

And that brings us to Jack Dorsey, the Twitter lightning-rod, 'rock star' and current "Executive Chairman," if his title didn't change last night. One would be correct in assuming that at some point in the Twitter gestation period, somebody must've said, "Who's gonna be our front-man?" like the lead singer for U2. Dorsey was, and continues to be that guy. Though he's no Bono, that is the clear Twitter' marketing strategy with Dorsey, make him a star in the media; wrap him up in amaranthine hyperbole and complimentary adjectives; and make it seem that this delicate genius-hero has built something very special to humanity. Nonsense. His other company, Square has a much stronger value proposition to its users than Twitter ever will.

In response to my question number two, "Is there identifiable hype--overstatement, embellishment or lies--around the technology and why we should be aware. In technology, there almost always is." My answer would have to be: "Yes, there is identifiable and annoying hype surrounding Twitter."

Beyond the vanity aspect of Twitter is the 'signal-to-noise ratio' aspect. I wrote about this dynamic in the Facebook column but essentially, it is that the value of any network--social, virtual or real-life--can only be as high as it is east to navigate. In other words, the more 'nodes' or in Twitter's case, people in the network, the harder it must be to navigate and therefore accomplish anything. Meeting new people helpful to you making your living, your business or any productivity at all becomes impossible when there are a billion or hundreds of millions of people Tweeting their 'white noise.'

As with my Facebook column before this, Twitter's reach-and-frequency and impressions numbers that they give to advertisers and Wall Street are momentous for their survival. And the advertising numbers are not looking good.




The tendency to 'overstate' in some cases and in others to outright lie about user data and advertising numbers such as CPC and CPA, is irresistible for these tech/social-media giants to inflate.

The upward trend for Twitter as the communications method of choice may be drawing to a close. People I talk to tell me that they've already moved on. While the people still Twittering away madly carry on oblivious, those of us who were in that place years ago and who have stopped, wonder "When will they move on?"

The correct answer for me to my third question, "Where will the beginning technology go? How can it improve? What would work better for us humans?" is this: I cannot imagine where Twitter can go from here. Perhaps Dorsey has a master plan. Let us hope for Twitter's shareholders' sake, he does. It seems to me that at the 140-character limit and as established as it is, there's nowhere but down to go.