Podcasts about ENIAC

On The Spark, Asia Tabb sat down with Paul Schaeffer—longtime spokesperson for ENIAC, the world’s first general-purpose electronic computer—to explore how a 1940s Army weapons project gave birth to the digital age and why its lessons still matter. ENIAC, unveiled in February 1946 at the University of Pennsylvania’s Moore School of Engineering, was originally built “to solve a problem the Army was having,”Support WITF: https://www.witf.org/support/give-now/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

No programa de hoje, falamos sobre o fim do suporte oficial à família de smartphones Galaxy S20 da Samsung e o que isso significa para os donos desses aparelhos, o novo chip Ironwood revelado pela Google para acelerar IA e disputar direto com a NVIDIA, especialistas falando que se os iPhones realmente fossem fabricados nos Estados Unidos como Trump quer, eles custariam até 90% mais caro, a antena Starlink Mini sendo homologada pela Anatel e liberada para venda no Brasil, e um documento da Meta revelando o número exato e a localização de vítimas que tiveram seus dispositivos infectados pelo spyware Pegasus por meio de uma brecha no WhatsApp.

Este episodio de 4 horas en “El Siglo 21 es Hoy” se centra en “La mitad de la ciencia”, un recorrido por las historias menos contadas de las mujeres en la ciencia y la influencia que sus logros han tenido en la innovación tecnológica. Analizamos cómo los sesgos históricos, la brecha de género y la discriminación algorítmica siguen presentes en la inteligencia artificial y la transformación digital.Conversamos con Linda Patiño, periodista y colaboradora de Google, sobre la inclusión digital, la brecha salarial, la equidad de género y la forma en que estas desigualdades impactan la participación de las mujeres en STEM. El episodio aborda el efecto Matilda, los sesgos en la IA, la invisibilidad de grandes científicas y los esfuerzos por visibilizar sus contribuciones.Toda la investigación, guion, narración, edición y musicalización de este pódcast son de Félix Riaño. Agradecemos también a Eulalia Pérez Sedeño y S. García Dauder, cuyas investigaciones inspiraron este contenido. Toda la música usada ha sido autorizada con licencia Audiio y Creative Commons.Este espacio busca reflexionar sobre el impacto de la desigualdad en la construcción del conocimiento y la necesidad de inclusión para generar cambios en la ciencia y la tecnología. Conoce experiencias reales, analiza la forma en que las nuevas tecnologías reproducen estereotipos y descubre las oportunidades que surgen cuando se rompe con las narrativas tradicionales.Capítulos:00:00:00 155200:04:38 Las mentiras científicas00:07:50 Advertencias00:09:16 Por qué lo oímos en voz de hombre00:13:29 Marinela Profi https://youtu.be/CovLICpc8Eo00:15:39 Rosalind Franklin y la Fotografía 5100:26:23 Darwin y el androcentrismo00:31:29 Neuromito de los hemisferios del cerebro00:35:05 Completitud e incompletitud00:37:26 Auditivas y kinestésicos00:41:43 Sesgos00:50:04 Sesgos en MIT00:56:14 Segos en Amazon01:00:38 Manels01:08:57 Kristi Boyd y la ceguera de datos https://youtu.be/T3iKQs2oKk401:13:59 Lise Meitner01:28:30 El "cerebro pequeño" de las mujeres01:36:50 Exagerar y minimizar01:44:01 Sex in education01:47:31 Histeria01:56:39 Efecto Mateo02:06:32 ENIAC y el efecto Matilda02:15:33 Nettie Maria Stevens02:19:10 Botazzi, Maathai, Youyou02:20:52 María Teresa Toral02:23:21 Jocelyn Bell Burnell02:30:29 Linda Patiño: Cuotas de género https://youtu.be/d4HdIfVv89E02:46:19 Puentes, no trincheras 02:59:02 Yo era una guardaespaldas chiquita 03:13:50 Me dijeron que apagara el computador 03:29:17 No podemos seguir hablando los mismos con los mismos 03:45:25 ¿Qué estoy haciendo yo en mi casa?Conviértete en un seguidor de este podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/el-siglo-21-es-hoy--880846/support.

Este episodio de 4 horas en “El Siglo 21 es Hoy” se centra en “La mitad de la ciencia”, un recorrido por las historias menos contadas de las mujeres en la ciencia y la influencia que sus logros han tenido en la innovación tecnológica. Analizamos cómo los sesgos históricos, la brecha de género y la discriminación algorítmica siguen presentes en la inteligencia artificial y la transformación digital.Conversamos con Linda Patiño, periodista y colaboradora de Google, sobre la inclusión digital, la brecha salarial, la equidad de género y la forma en que estas desigualdades impactan la participación de las mujeres en STEM. El episodio aborda el efecto Matilda, los sesgos en la IA, la invisibilidad de grandes científicas y los esfuerzos por visibilizar sus contribuciones.Toda la investigación, guion, narración, edición y musicalización de este pódcast son de Félix Riaño. Agradecemos también a Eulalia Pérez Sedeño y S. García Dauder, cuyas investigaciones inspiraron este contenido. Toda la música usada ha sido autorizada con licencia Audiio y Creative Commons.Este espacio busca reflexionar sobre el impacto de la desigualdad en la construcción del conocimiento y la necesidad de inclusión para generar cambios en la ciencia y la tecnología. Conoce experiencias reales, analiza la forma en que las nuevas tecnologías reproducen estereotipos y descubre las oportunidades que surgen cuando se rompe con las narrativas tradicionales.Capítulos:00:00:00 155200:04:38 Las mentiras científicas00:07:50 Advertencias00:09:16 Por qué lo oímos en voz de hombre00:13:29 Marinela Profi https://youtu.be/CovLICpc8Eo00:15:39 Rosalind Franklin y la Fotografía 5100:26:23 Darwin y el androcentrismo00:31:29 Neuromito de los hemisferios del cerebro00:35:05 Completitud e incompletitud00:37:26 Auditivas y kinestésicos00:41:43 Sesgos00:50:04 Sesgos en MIT00:56:14 Segos en Amazon01:00:38 Manels01:08:57 Kristi Boyd y la ceguera de datos https://youtu.be/T3iKQs2oKk401:13:59 Lise Meitner01:28:30 El "cerebro pequeño" de las mujeres01:36:50 Exagerar y minimizar01:44:01 Sex in education01:47:31 Histeria01:56:39 Efecto Mateo02:06:32 ENIAC y el efecto Matilda02:15:33 Nettie Maria Stevens02:19:10 Botazzi, Maathai, Youyou02:20:52 María Teresa Toral02:23:21 Jocelyn Bell Burnell02:30:29 Linda Patiño: Cuotas de género https://youtu.be/d4HdIfVv89E02:46:19 Puentes, no trincheras 02:59:02 Yo era una guardaespaldas chiquita 03:13:50 Me dijeron que apagara el computador 03:29:17 No podemos seguir hablando los mismos con los mismos 03:45:25 ¿Qué estoy haciendo yo en mi casa?Conviértete en un seguidor de este podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/el-siglo-21-es-hoy--880846/support.

Este episodio de 4 horas en “El Siglo 21 es Hoy” se centra en “La mitad de la ciencia”, un recorrido por las historias menos contadas de las mujeres en la ciencia y la influencia que sus logros han tenido en la innovación tecnológica. Analizamos cómo los sesgos históricos, la brecha de género y la discriminación algorítmica siguen presentes en la inteligencia artificial y la transformación digital.Conversamos con Linda Patiño, periodista y colaboradora de Google, sobre la inclusión digital, la brecha salarial, la equidad de género y la forma en que estas desigualdades impactan la participación de las mujeres en STEM. El episodio aborda el efecto Matilda, los sesgos en la IA, la invisibilidad de grandes científicas y los esfuerzos por visibilizar sus contribuciones.Toda la investigación, guion, narración, edición y musicalización de este pódcast son de Félix Riaño. Agradecemos también a Eulalia Pérez Sedeño y S. García Dauder, cuyas investigaciones inspiraron este contenido. Toda la música usada ha sido autorizada con licencia Audiio y Creative Commons.Este espacio busca reflexionar sobre el impacto de la desigualdad en la construcción del conocimiento y la necesidad de inclusión para generar cambios en la ciencia y la tecnología. Conoce experiencias reales, analiza la forma en que las nuevas tecnologías reproducen estereotipos y descubre las oportunidades que surgen cuando se rompe con las narrativas tradicionales.Capítulos:00:00:00 155200:04:38 Las mentiras científicas00:07:50 Advertencias00:09:16 Por qué lo oímos en voz de hombre00:13:29 Marinela Profi https://youtu.be/CovLICpc8Eo00:15:39 Rosalind Franklin y la Fotografía 5100:26:23 Darwin y el androcentrismo00:31:29 Neuromito de los hemisferios del cerebro00:35:05 Completitud e incompletitud00:37:26 Auditivas y kinestésicos00:41:43 Sesgos00:50:04 Sesgos en MIT00:56:14 Segos en Amazon01:00:38 Manels01:08:57 Kristi Boyd y la ceguera de datos https://youtu.be/T3iKQs2oKk401:13:59 Lise Meitner01:28:30 El "cerebro pequeño" de las mujeres01:36:50 Exagerar y minimizar01:44:01 Sex in education01:47:31 Histeria01:56:39 Efecto Mateo02:06:32 ENIAC y el efecto Matilda02:15:33 Nettie Maria Stevens02:19:10 Botazzi, Maathai, Youyou02:20:52 María Teresa Toral02:23:21 Jocelyn Bell Burnell02:30:29 Linda Patiño: Cuotas de género https://youtu.be/d4HdIfVv89E02:46:19 Puentes, no trincheras 02:59:02 Yo era una guardaespaldas chiquita 03:13:50 Me dijeron que apagara el computador 03:29:17 No podemos seguir hablando los mismos con los mismos 03:45:25 ¿Qué estoy haciendo yo en mi casa?Conviértete en un seguidor de este podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/el-siglo-21-es-hoy--880846/support.

KOSMONAUTEN FM LIVE – 16. Februar 2025 – 00 – 00 H 00.00-01.30 PAUL FRÖHLICH (Ruhestoerung im Kosmos, Büro Paul Fröhlich, Cafe Feierabend) 01.30-03.00 DASH&PREUSS (Kosmonauten Records) 03.00-04.30 KLANGTHERAPEUT (Minimalradio.de, die Strategen, coloRadioClub, Kosmonauten Records) 04.30-06.00 MICHAEL VON BOON (Nachtflug, Kosmonauten Records) 06.00-07.30 DEECUE (Kosmonauten Records, Chemnitz) 07.30-09.00 EFFACER (Kosmonauten Records, Chemnitz) 09.00-10.30 MIDDIX (Kosmonauten Records, Dresden) 10.30-12.00 ANSEK (Kosmonauten Records, Dresden) 12.00-13.30 GARY (Aktion in Stereo) 13.30-15.00 ENIAC (Kosmo Records) 15.00-16.30 ULF DA WULF (Kosmonauten Records, Sydney) 16.30-18.00 GEESPOT (Kosmonauen Records, Dresden) 18.00-19.30 HIGH TORQUE (Ultima Ratio, Leipzig) 19.30-21.00 _NYQUIST (Injection Records, Plastic Phreak) 21.00-22.30 BENET (Kosmonauten Records) 22.30-00.00 DIGITAL KAOS (Kosmonauten FM, Kosmonautentanz, Kosmonauten Records)

Bilgisayar... Tüm dünyayı baştan aşağı değiştiren bir icat. Belki de tarihin en önemli kesiflerinde biri. Fakat bu devrim bir anda olmadı elbette. Basit bir hesap yapma aracından, yapay zekaya kadar uzanan bu serüven, insanlığın kendini aşma çabasının da hikayesiydi aslında. Hiçbir Şey Tesadüf Değil'de bu teknolojik devrimin arka planına odaklanıyoruz. İki bölümden oluşacak mini bu mini serinin ilk ayağındaysa, hayatımızı değiştiren bu teknolojiyi en ilkel günlerinden itibaren incelemeye çalışıyoruz.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week we chat with Nihal Mehta! At Eniac, they call Nihal the human Rolodex, thanks to the thousands of connections he has made with some of the world's top companies and brands. He developed many of these connections (and scar tissue!) over the past 20+ years while founding five startups: Philly2nite -> UrbanGroove -> Chapter 7 bankruptcy; ipsh! -> acquired by Omnicom (NYSE: OMC); buzzd -> LocalResponse -> acquired by BlueCava.Early in his career, Nihal honed his ability to spot top entrepreneurial talent by investing in Admob (acquired by Google), Swiftkey (acquired by Microsoft), Tapad (acquired by Telenor), Tala, and Uber, to name a few. Nihal and his wife are now angel investors and LPs in almost 100 underrepresented founders and fund managers.Nihal is a co-founder of the non-profit “Project Ahimsa,” providing scholarships to disadvantaged youth in India, where his parents immigrated from in the early 1970s. Nihal also recently co-founded initiatives like Help Main Street to help restaurants survive the pandemic, and The 100k Pledge, a social justice tracker of economic empowerment to Black communities. You might catch him running down the Hudson River weekday mornings with founders and his #pitchandrun crew.Outside of the office Nihal loves to spend time with his wife Reshma and is a big supporter of her non-profit Girls Who Code and her initiative “Moms First.” Around town, you will usually see him with his sons Shaan and Sai and beagle-bulldog Stanley. Nihal is the life of the party, which is why he always spearheads Eniac events.Nihal graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a BA in Philosophy and a BSE in Computer Science.Follow us!Nihal Mehta: @nihalmehtaEniac Ventures: @EniacVCErica Wenger: @erica_wengerDear Twentysomething: @deartwentysomething

In this episode, Kevin speaks with with the influential tech thinker Tim O'Reilly, founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media and popularizer of terms such as open source and Web 2.0. O'Reilly, who co-leads the AI Disclosures Project at the Social Science Research Council, offers an insightful and historically-informed take on AI governance. Tim and Kevin first explore the evolution of AI, tracing its roots from early computing innovations like ENIAC to its current transformative role Tim notes the centralization of AI development, the critical role of data access, and the costs of creating advanced models. The conversation then delves into AI ethics and safety, covering issues like fairness, transparency, bias, and the need for robust regulatory frameworks. They also examine the potential for distributed AI systems, cooperative models, and industry-specific applications that leverage specialized datasets. Finally, Tim and Kevin highlight the opportunities and risks inherent in AI's rapid growth, urging collaboration, accountability, and innovative thinking to shape a sustainable and equitable future for the technology. Tim O'Reilly is the founder, CEO, and Chairman of O'Reilly Media, which delivers online learning, publishes books, and runs conferences about cutting-edge technology, and has a history of convening conversations that reshape the computer industry. Tim is also a partner at early stage venture firm O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures (OATV), and on the boards of Code for America, PeerJ, Civis Analytics, and PopVox. He is the author of many technical books published by O'Reilly Media, and most recently WTF? What's the Future and Why It's Up to Us (Harper Business, 2017).  SSRC, AI Disclosures Project Asimov's Addendum Substack The First Step to Proper AI Regulation Is to Make Companies Fully Disclose the Risks

En el programa de hoy se analiza la evolución de los computadores, comenzando con el ENIAC, uno de los primeros computadores programables que fue creado en 1945 para calcular trayectorias balísticas. El anfitrión describe los componentes físicos y el proceso de programación manual que implicaba el ENIAC, además de destacar la fundamental, aunque poco reconocida, participación de seis mujeres en su programación. Luego, menciona la máquina Colossus, utilizada en Inglaterra para descifrar códigos nazis, y la importancia de la máquina Enigma. También explora los antecedentes de las máquinas de cálculo, como la Pascalina del siglo XVII y los autómatas del siglo XVIII, que lograron grandes avances en su época. El programa finaliza reflexionando sobre el avance de la inteligencia artificial y cómo esta tecnología afectará profundamente el futuro de la humanidad, cambiando la forma en que trabajamos y vivimos. Para acceder al programa sin interrupción de comerciales, suscríbete a Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/elvillegas 00:00:06 - Orígenes del computador ENIAC 00:13:01 - Mujeres programadoras del ENIAC 00:19:01 - Colossus y la máquina Enigma 00:22:02 - Primeras calculadoras y autómatas 00:31:28 - Inteligencia artificial y el futuro

Eric Futoran is Co-Founder & CEO of Embrace, the mobile observability platform built on OpenTelemetry. Embrace has raised almost $80M from investors including NEA, Greycroft & Eniac. In this episode, we dig into the creation of mobile observability as a category and how Embrace helped evangelize it, what makes mobile observability unique, why they open sourced their SDKs, how aligning with OpenTelemetry changed their trajectory, the difference between having product-market-fit and GTM-market-fit, shifting from just focusing on mobile teams to mobile + DevOps teams & more!

Songbird sings longer with Eniac. (Song Facts music, "Sunday Morning" by Nicolai Heidlas from Hooksounds.)

Max Pearson presents a collection of the week's Witness History episodes. Our guest is Zoe Kleinman, the BBC's Technology Editor.We start with the world's first general purpose electronic computer, the ENIAC, built in 1946 by a team of female mathematicians including Kathleen Kay McNulty.Then we hear about the man who invented the original chatbot, called Eliza, but didn't believe computers could achieve intelligence.Following that, Dr Hiromichi Fujisawa describes how his team at Waseda University in Japan developed the first humanoid robot in 1973, called WABOT-1.Staying in Japan, the engineer Masahiro Hara explains how he was inspired to design the first QR code by his favourite board game.Finally, Thérèse Izay Kirongozi recounts how the death of her brother drove her to build robots that manage traffic in the Democratic Republic of Congo.Contributors: Zoe Kleinman - BBC Technology Editor. Gini Mauchly Calcerano - daughter of Kathleen Kay McNulty, who developed ENIAC. Miriam Weizenbaum - daughter of Joseph Weizenbaum, who built Eliza chatbot. Dr Hiromichi Fujisawa - developer of WABOT-1 robot. Masahiro Hara - inventor of the QR code. Thérèse Izay Kirongozi - engineer behind traffic robots.(Photo: Robots manage traffic in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. Credit: Federico Scoppa/AFP via Getty Images)

In 1946, one of the world's first electronic computers was unveiled in Philadelphia, in the USA. It was called the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer, or ENIAC, and was initially designed to do calculations for ballistics trajectories. It was programmed by six female mathematicians. Rachel Naylor speaks to Gini Mauchly Calcerano, whose dad John Mauchly co-designed it, and whose mum, Kay McNulty, was one of the programmers. Eye-witness accounts brought to life by archive. Witness History is for those fascinated by the past. We take you to the events that have shaped our world through the eyes of the people who were there. For nine minutes every day, we take you back in time and all over the world, to examine wars, coups, scientific discoveries, cultural moments and much more. Recent episodes explore everything from football in Brazil, the history of the ‘Indian Titanic' and the invention of air fryers, to Public Enemy's Fight The Power, subway art and the political crisis in Georgia. We look at the lives of some of the most famous leaders, artists, scientists and personalities in history, including: visionary architect Antoni Gaudi and the design of the Sagrada Familia; Michael Jordan and his bespoke Nike trainers; Princess Diana at the Taj Mahal; and Görel Hanser, manager of legendary Swedish pop band Abba on the influence they've had on the music industry. You can learn all about fascinating and surprising stories, such as the time an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at the President of the United States in protest of America's occupation of Iraq; the creation of the Hollywood commercial that changed advertising forever; and the ascent of the first Aboriginal MP.(Photo: Computer operators programming the ENIAC. Credit: Corbis via Getty Images)

80年続くプログラミングあるあるとは？「ドキュメントがなくて地獄になる」「放置してたら詳細を忘れてドキュメントを残せない」「バグは寝て起きたら解決する」など、昔からのエンジニアあるあるを紹介しました。 【目次】 0:00 80年続くプログラミングあるある 1:37 ドキュメントがなくて地獄になる 16:01 忙しすぎてドキュメント残すのも無理ゲー 20:19 ENIACに度々起こる不可解なトラブル 24:12 バグは寝て起きたら解決する 30:45 イベントあるある：当日の朝なんとかする 【参考文献】 ◯コンピューター誕生の歴史に隠れた6人の女性プログラマー （VB） ⇨ https://www.valuebooks.jp/bp/VS0090487547 （Amazon）⇨ https://amzn.to/3XUXBJP 【サポーターコミュニティへの加入はこちらから！】 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://yurugengo.com/support⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 【親チャンネル：ゆる言語学ラジオ】 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@yurugengo⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 【実店舗プロジェクト：ゆる学徒カフェ】 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@yurugakuto⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 【お仕事依頼はこちら！】 info@pedantic.jp 【堀元見プロフィール】 慶應義塾大学理工学部卒。専門は情報工学。WEBにコンテンツを作り散らかすことで生計を立てている。現在の主な収入源は「アカデミックに人の悪口を書くnote有料マガジン」。 Twitter→⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/kenhori2⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ noteマガジン→⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://note.com/kenhori2/m/m125fc4524aca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 個人YouTube→⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@kenHorimoto⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 【水野太貴プロフィール】 名古屋大学文学部卒。専門は言語学。某大手出版社で編集者として勤務。言語学の知識が本業に活きてるかと思いきや、そうでもない。 Twitter→⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/yuru_mizuno⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

As notícias de hoje incluem as bets irregulares dando um pelé no Google prometendo apostas sem CPF, o Android ganhando um atalho para você saber a música que está tocando, o Galaxy S24 FE lançado por um precinho salgado aqui no Brasil, a BYD fazendo um recall de 100 mil carros por um problema grave e o X passando o recibo, aceitando o pagamento das novas multas do STF e o ministro Alexandre de Moraes ordenando o desbloqueio das contas bancárias da empresa.

This week featuring:Roland Leesker & Sobantwana - AfunukuthulaCamelPhat & Nadia Ali - EndlesslyJP Candela - AtacamaParra for Cuva - Ventilate (Monkey Safari Remix)Tez Cadey - Seve 2.0 (Luch Rework)Ramyen - DreamersRemcord - Entourage EffectFrankey & Sandrino - The MomentCassian - Dun DunChristian Nielsen - FamilyRebūke - Along Came Polly (Konstantin Sibold, ZAC & CARMEE Remix)Tom Novy, Eniac - Pumpin' 2008 (Jason Young Rework)

Die IT-Security Pros unter euch müssen heute stark sein. Es geht nur wenig um Cyber... aber dafür um "war", also traditionellen, konventionellen Krieg. Genauer, es geht um das Konzept des hybriden Krieges und seine Auswirkungen auf die gegenwärtige geopolitische Lage, insbesondere im Kontext des Russland-Ukraine-Konflikts. Die Folge beleuchtet, wie hybride Kriegsführung - eine Kombination aus militärischen Operationen, Sabotage, Cyberangriffen, Informationskrieg, Desinformationskampagnen und wirtschaftlichem Druck - die traditionellen Grenzen zwischen Krieg und Frieden verwischt. Dabei betrachte ich das Buch "Strategy" von Liddell Hart, der sich intensiv mit der Geschichte diverser Kriege befasst hat und daraus "strategische Lehren" zieht, die auch heute noch anwendbar sind. Wir schauen uns an, wie Harts Erkenntnisse über psychologische Kriegsführung und die Bedeutung von Informationen und Propaganda im modernen Kontext relevant bleiben.Ein besonderer Fokus liegt auf der Frage, ob die aktuelle Situation eine Vorstufe zu einem konventionellen Krieg darstellt oder ob ""hybrider Krieg" als eigenständige Form des Konflikts betrachtet werden sollte. Die Podcastfolge erörtert, verschiedene Taktiken des hybriden Kriegs, die von Cyberangriffen bis hin zur Unterstützung autoritärer Bewegungen reichen, die Sicherheit Europas und der NATO beeinflussen könnten. Shownotes Lukas Milevski - The Baltic Defense Line US general says Russian army has grown by 15 percent since pre-Ukraine war NATO Must Prepare to Defend Its Weakest Point—the Suwalki Corridor Wie Russland für einen langen Krieg rekrutiert B. H. Liddell Hart, Strategy (1954) Basil H. Liddell Hart: His Applicability to Modern War A Very Special Relationship: Basil Liddell Hart, Wehrmacht Generals and the Debate on West German Rearmament, 1945–1953 Basil Liddell Hart and the Art of Peace  Hybrid warfare: The continuation of ambiguity by other means The Evolution of Russian Hybrid Warfare: Executive Summary BMVg: Hybride Bedrohungen Timecodes 00:00:20 Intro 00:03:11 Liddell Hart und sein Buch "Strategy" 00:07:15 Konzept Hybrider Krieg 00:09:40 Hart's These: Krieg ist mehr als Gewalt 00:12:00 The art of war 00:15:00 Informationskrieg 00:22:00 Dislocation 00:26:00 Kritik 00:28:00 Fazit Hinweise Blog & Podcast über die dunkle Seite der Digitalisierung: Cyber-Sicherheit, Cyber-War, Spionage, Hacker, Sabotage, Subversion und Desinformation. Kommentare und konstruktives Feedback bitte auf percepticon.de oder via Twitter. Dieser Cyber Security Podcast erscheint auf iTunes, Spotify, PocketCast, Stitcher oder via RSS Feed. Am Anfang folgt noch ein kleiner Nachtrag zur letzten Folge mit den Top 10 IT-Sicherheitstipps, nachdem mich etwas Feedback dazu erreichte. Sound & Copyright Modem Sound, Creative Commons. © Vint Cerf, "Internet shows up in December 1975", in: IEEE Computer Society, Computing Conversations: Vint Cerf on the History of Packets, December 2012. © L0pht Heavy Industries testifying before the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Live feed from CSPAN, May 19, 1998. © Barack Obama, Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection Summit Address, 13 February 2015, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. © Michael Hayden, "We kill people based on meta-data," in: The Johns Hopkins Foreign Affairs Symposium Presents: The Price of Privacy: Re-Evaluating the NSA, April 2014. © Bruce Schneier, "Complexity is the enemy of security, in IEEE Computer Society, Bruce Schneier: Building Cryptographic Systems, March 2016. Beats, Bass & Music created with Apple GarageBand © Computer History 1946, ENIAC, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGk9W65vXNA

Stephen Wolfram answers questions from his viewers about the history of science and technology as part of an unscripted livestream series, also available on YouTube here: https://wolfr.am/youtube-sw-qa Questions include: What are the key requirements in place for past scientific revolutions? - What do you think about the effective accelerationism movement? What history led to or influenced it? - ​​Exploring binary code's historical role in programming and its connection to physics laws, in the universe as a giant computer: do parallels exist between binary principles and underlying structures? - ​​Can you talk about the history of cybernetics, second-order cybernetics and its current connections to the observer in the ruliad? - Did the "cyber" definition come before the definition of "robotics"? - You are forgetting George Spencer-Brown for the second-order cybernetics topic. - Have you ever used the ideas he expounded in Laws of Form​? - What was the significance of the ENIAC computer?​ - Isaac Newton was known as the father of modern physics. How might he view advancements since his time? Would he have anything to add? - What is the history of small business vs. big business? Was there a shift in history when one overtook the other? - Can you talk about the history of traveling to space? How come Moon visits aren't more frequent?

L'émission Front Page est une revue d'actualité qui s'intéresse à tout ce qui touche le monde de la bande dessinée américaine (comics) du côté des Etats-Unis comme de la France, ainsi qu'à ses adaptations tous médias confondus. Le podcast est une série régulière chez First Print et revient au rythme de trois épisodes par mois, hors contenus spéciaux. Ce Front Page est le premier podcast consacré à l'actualité comics du mois de mai 2024.Répondez à notre GRANDE ENQUÊTE ICILe podcast est sponsorisé par Pulps et on vous propose un "Focus Pulps" chaque mois ! Découvrez une sélection de comics VO à prix de lancement !Le Focus Pulps de mai 2024 : Aliens vs Avengers #1 / Hello Darkness #1/ TMNT #1, oh et puis Spider-Man : Reign II #1Si vous appréciez le travail fourni par l'équipe et que vous souhaitez soutenir le podcast, vous pouvez partager les émissions sur les réseaux sociaux et vous abonner à nos différents comptes, laisser des notes sur les différentes plateformes d'écoute, ou encore nous soutenir via notre page Tipeee. Très bonne écoute à vous, et à bientôt pour le prochain podcast !LE PROGRAMMECOMICS - 04:45Dédicaces à venir chez Album, Alan Davis invité d'honneur de Japan ExpoExposition LUG par ses auteursLes séries d'horreur de Huginn & Muninn de retour en librairieTankers et ENIAC arrivent cet été aux éditions BlissHack/Slash : Back to School prévu en novembre 2024 chez HiComicsSomna et Barnstormers annoncés pour 2025 aux éditions Delcourt404 Graphic annonce déjà sa première sortie de 2025 : AnzueloRemote Space : Cliff Rathburn se la joue SF brutale chez ImageUn titre Jenny Spark par Tom King annoncé en DC Black LabelJeff Lemire annonce trois projets pour DC et une pause pour le Bone Orchard MythosJonathan Hickman et Greg Capullo sur Wolverine : RevengeRob Liefeld fait son baroud d'honneur sur DeadpoolTV - 1:38:20SyFy annonce une adaptation TV des comics Revival de Tim SeeleyChez Amazon, on abandonne Silk mais on commande Spider-Man NoirDes dates pour Agatha All Along et Daredevil : Born Again (et un changement de logo)CINEMA - 2:05:20Edgar Wright en discussions pour réaliser le Barbarella de Sydney SweeneyUn scénariste trouvé pour le reboot des X-Men chez Marvel StudiosSoutenez First Print - Podcast Comics de Référence sur TipeeeHébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

My latest Quantum Tech Pod with Ken Durazzo, VP of tech company Dell Research, is live!  Prior to joining Dell Research, Ken worked at Cisco for 20 years on myriad technologies. In 2016, he started leading research into quantum at Dell. At Dell Research, Ken's current focus includes hybrid quantum computing, quantum-safe cryptography, as well as generative AI, human-machine interfaces, and heterogeneous computing acceleration and virtualization. His take on the current state of quantum? “We are in the ENIAC era. If you go back in computer history, there was a time when we used to have to write assembly language for computers!” Ken is also Dell Research's representative to the World Economic Forum's Quantum Network, a global array of business leaders and practitioners focused on leveraging quantum technologies to address large-scale problems. A recent collaboration between Dell and ASU's Quantum Collaborative resulted in a certificate program called Quantum Technology for Executives and Leaders (QTEL) designed to help learners explore emerging applications of quantum information science and its potential to revolutionize academia, government, and industry. ASU is offering a discount until March 1st using this promo code - QTEL30OFF11731. Check out my conversation with Ken! The “Quantum Tech Pod” podcast, hosted by Christopher Bishop from Inside Quantum Technology, offers a deep dive into the rapidly evolving world of quantum technology. Christopher, an industry expert, engages with leading figures in the field, discussing the latest developments, breakthroughs, and challenges in quantum computing, communication, sensing, and cryptography. The podcast is an informative platform for experts and enthusiasts, providing insights into how quantum technology shapes the future and its implications across various industries. Whether you're a seasoned professional or just curious about quantum technology, “Quantum Tech Pod” delivers engaging conversations illuminating this cutting-edge field.

The Le Random team of ⁠thefunnyguys⁠, Peter Bauman (⁠Monk Antony⁠) and Conrad House (⁠Nemo Cake⁠) spoke to special guest and acclaimed gallerist Kate Vass about a whirlwind ⁠one hundred years of generative art history (1850-1949)⁠,the Modern Era. This episode corresponds with: ⁠Generative Art Timeline: Chapter 2 10 Significant Modern Era Moments (Covered in the talk)⁠ The Great Exhibition of London Lights Early Spark of the Arts & Crafts Movement (1851) Modern art Begins: Manet's Work Rejected by Paris Salon (1863) + Cézanne's Mont Sainte-Victoire Series (1870-1906) Les Demoiselles d'Avignon by Picasso kicks off Cubism (1907) The Ten Biggest, No 7 by Hilma af Klint (1907) Tatlin and Rodchenko Found Constructivism and Malevich Stages the 0.10 Exhibition with Black Square. (1915) Walter Gropius Founds Bauhaus (1919) Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray Create Rotary Glass Plates (1920) Gunta Stölzl Named Director of Bauhaus Weaving Workshop (1927) Birth of digital computing: Konrad Zuse Completes the Z3 (1941) + ENIAC (1945) 10. Cybernetics Is Born: Norbert Wiener's Cybernetics + Claude Shannon's "A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” (1948)

RESHARE! Thanks to Paddy Dhanda for having Mark Pesce on his Podcast Superpowers school - we're happy to be sharing here! 

Jace and Rocky chat about the 2021 debut series from Bad Idea, ENIAC. Drawing from real world events and history, Matt Kindt and Doug Braithwaite craft a thrilling story of sentient technology balanced with intimate emotion from relevant characters. Join the guys as they break the story down issues by issue and talk about the compelling and meta-relevant themes of AI and political tensions.

Free, ungated access to all 285+ episodes of “It's 5:05!” on your favorite podcast platforms: https://bit.ly/505-updates. You're welcome to

Lex chats with Christopher Pallotta - founder and CEO of Templum, a company focused on alternative investments and private markets. Pallotta discusses his background in technology and investing, as well as the journey of Templum and its transformation into a provider of regulated infrastructure for investor protection and tokenized securities. He explains how Templum's technology and broker-dealer and alternative trading system (ATS) capabilities enable the trading of regulated tokenized securities in a compliant manner. Pallotta also discusses the demand for alternative assets and the role of liquidity in driving adoption. He highlights the potential for alternative assets to outperform traditional markets and the need for liquidity mechanisms in the alternative asset space. Finally, Pallotta shares his vision for the future, where alternative assets become more accessible and investing in them becomes as ubiquitous as investing in public equities. MENTIONED IN THE CONVERSATION Templum's Website: https://bit.ly/3GfLr63Christopher's LinkedIn profile: https://bit.ly/47O2sjy Topics: fintech, hedge fund, REIT, ETF, finance, real world assets, RWA, tokenization, alternative assets Companies: Templum, Raptor Group, Eniac, 8VC, New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ ABOUT THE FINTECH BLUEPRINT 

TRUE HOUSE STORIES® W/ PHIL FULDNER # 118 INTERVIEWED BY LENNY FONTANA One of Germany's longest-serving DJs and producers, Phil Fuldner is a Kosmonaut. In other words, he belongs to that elite group of performers -- such as Tom Novy, Eniac, and DJ Moguai -- who've signed on with Germany's ultra hip Kosmo Records label. Fuldner first hit the big time in 1997 thanks to the single "The Final" -- a remake of the old "Captain Future Hymn." A massive success on dance charts all over Europe, the release was a tandem effort with DJ Moguai, with whom Fuldner has had a long association dating back to the pre-Kosmo times. In 1998, he had a go at covering the retro-classic "S-Express" -- the theme to the S-Express TV show -- and the result was yet another dance chart topper in Germany. During the next couple of years, Fuldner was busy in the studio producing and remixing a host of popular compilation albums, working with such big names as Timo Maas, Judge Jules, and Yves Deruyter.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why no Roman Industrial Revolution?, published by jasoncrawford on July 26, 2023 on LessWrong. Why didn't the Roman Empire have an industrial revolution? Bret Devereaux has an essay addressing that question, which multiple people have pointed me to at various times. In brief, Devereaux says that Britain industrialized through a very specific path, involving coal mines, steam engines, and textile production. The Roman Empire didn't have those specific preconditions, and it's not clear to him that any other path could have created an Industrial Revolution. So Rome didn't have an IR because they didn't have coal mines that they needed to pump water out of, they didn't have a textile industry that was ready to make use of steam power, etc. (Although he says he can't rule out alternative paths to industrialization, he doesn't seem to give any weight to that possibility.) I find this explanation intelligent, informed, and interesting - yet unsatisfying, in the same way and for the same reasons as I find Robert Allen's explanation unsatisfying: I don't believe that industrialization was so contingent on such very specific factors. When you consider the breadth of problems being solved and advances being made in so many different areas, the progress of that era looks less like a lucky break, and more like a general problem-solving ability getting applied to the challenge of human existence. (I tried to get Devereaux's thoughts on this, but I guess he was too busy to give much of an answer.) As a thought experiment: Suppose that British geology had been different, and it hadn't had much coal. Would we still be living in a pre-industrial world, 300 years later? What about in 1000 years? This seems implausible to me. Or, suppose there is an intelligent alien civilization that has been around for much longer than humans. Would you expect that they have definitely industrialized in some form? Or would it depend on the particular geology of their planet? Are fossil fuels the Great Filter? Again, implausible. I expect that given enough time, any sufficiently intelligent species would reach a high level of technology on the vast majority of habitable planets. Devereaux asserts that there is a "deeply contingent nature of historical events . that data (like the charts of global GDP over centuries) can sometimes fail to capture." I see this in reverse: the chart of global GDP over centuries is, to my mind, evidence that progress is not so contingent on random historical flukes, that there is a deeper underlying process driving it. So why didn't the Roman Empire have an industrial revolution? Consider a related question: why didn't the Roman Empire have an information revolution? Why didn't they invent the computer? Presumably the answer is obvious: they were missing too many preconditions, such as electricity, not to mention math (if you think ENIAC's decimal-based arithmetic was inefficient, imagine a computer trying to use Roman numerals). Even conceiving the computer, let alone inventing one, requires reaching a certain level of technological development first, and the Romans were nowhere near that. I think the answer is roughly the same for why no Roman IR, it's just a bit less obvious. Here are a few of the things the ancient Romans didn't have: The spinning wheel The windmill The horse collar Cast iron Latex rubber The movable-type printing press The mechanical clock The compass Arabic numerals And a few other key inventions, such as the moldboard plow and the crank-and-connecting-rod, showed up only in the 3rd century or later, well past the peak of the Empire. How are you going to industrialize when you don't have cast iron to build machines out of, or basic mechanical linkages to use in them? How could a society increase labor productivity through automation when it hasn't ev...

paypal.me/LibroTobias Esta semana en nuestra “Sección principal” me complace hablar de esa joya de nuestro cine que es “Verano 1993”. La ópera prima de la brillante Carla Simón protagonizada por Laia Artigas, Bruna Cusí, David Verdaguer y Paula Robles. Además en nuestra sección “El callejón oscuro” os traigo a Herman Webster Mudgett, también conocido como Dr. Henry Howard Holmes o simplemente “Dr. Holmes”, un asesino en serie que confesó hasta veintisiete asesinatos y cincuenta intentos de asesinato. Finalmente en la sección “¿Qué fue de?” esta semana os hablo de las Top Secret Rosies, nombre que se le da a un grupo de mujeres que en 1942 fueron contratadas por el ejército Estadounidense para programar uno de los primeros computadores, el ENIAC. Link a la lista de canciones que aparecen en la novela “Christine” de Stephen King creada por nuestro amigo Víctor Trabadelo: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7lQl3tB7M54tvqCs9E7ovz?si=E-xH6El5RuWQwveJtjIWRw&utm_source=native-share-menu&nd=1 Tiempos: Sección principal: del 00:03:34 al 01:43:33 Sección “El callejón oscuro”: del 01:43:34 al 02:26:40 Sección “¿Qué fue de?”: del 02:26:41 al 03:09:33 Presentación, dirección, edición y montaje: Asier Menéndez Marín Diseño logo Podcast: albacanodesigns (Alba Cano) Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Kathy Kleiman joins the podcast to discuss her recent book, Proving Ground: The Untold Story of the Six Women Who Programmed the World's First Modern Computer. Kathy and Gus start their conversation with background on the ENIAC computer itself – how it was funded, what its purpose was, and how it worked. Kleiman then explains the extraordinary story of the six women who were hired to program the ENIAC.TwitterKathy Kleiman @KleimKGus Hurwitz @GusHurwitzLinksProving Ground: The Untold Story of the Six Women Who Programmed the World's First Modern Computer | Kathy KleimanENIAC Programmers Project

We've talked about the history of microchips, transistors, and other chip makers. Today we're going to talk about Intel in a little more detail.  Intel is short for Integrated Electronics. They were founded in 1968 by Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore. Noyce was an Iowa kid who went off to MIT to get a PhD in physics in 1953. He went off to join the Shockley Semiconductor Lab to join up with William Shockley who'd developed the transistor as a means of bringing a solid-state alternative to vacuum tubes in computers and amplifiers. Shockley became erratic after he won the Nobel Prize and 8 of the researchers left, now known as the “traitorous eight.”  Between them came over 60 companies, including Intel - but first they went on to create a new company called Fairchild Semiconductor where Noyce invented the monolithic integrated circuit in 1959, or a single chip that contains multiple transistors.  After 10 years at Fairchild, Noyce joined up with coworker and fellow traitor Gordon Moore. Moore had gotten his PhD in chemistry from Caltech and had made an observation while at Fairchild that the number of transistors, resistors, diodes, or capacitors in an integrated circuit was doubling every year and so coined Moore's Law, that it would continue to to do so. They wanted to make semiconductor memory cheaper and more practical. They needed money to continue their research. Arthur Rock had helped them find a home at Fairchild when they left Shockley and helped them raise $2.5 million in backing in a couple of days.  The first day of the company, Andy Grove joined them from Fairchild. He'd fled the Hungarian revolution in the 50s and gotten a PhD in chemical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. Then came Leslie Vadász, another Hungarian emigrant. Funding and money coming in from sales allowed them to hire some of the best in the business. People like Ted Hoff , Federico Faggin, and Stan Mazor. That first year they released 64-bit static random-access memory in the 3101 chip, doubling what was on the market as well as the 3301 read-only memory chip, and the 1101. Then DRAM, or dynamic random-access memory in the 1103 in 1970, which became the bestselling chip within the first couple of years. Armed with a lineup of chips and an explosion of companies that wanted to buy the chips, they went public within 2 years of being founded. 1971 saw Dov Frohman develop erasable programmable read-only memory, or EPROM, while working on a different problem. This meant they could reprogram chips using ultraviolet light and electricity. In 1971 they also created the Intel 4004 chip, which was started in 1969 when a calculator manufacturer out of Japan ask them to develop 12 different chips. Instead they made one that could do all of the tasks of the 12, outperforming the ENIAC from 1946 and so the era of the microprocessor was born. And instead of taking up a basement at a university lab, it took up an eight of an inch by a sixth of an inch to hold a whopping 2,300 transistors. The chip didn't contribute a ton to the bottom line of the company, but they'd built the first true microprocessor, which would eventually be what they were known for. Instead they were making DRAM chips. But then came the 8008 in 1972, ushering in an 8-bit CPU. The memory chips were being used by other companies developing their own processors but they knew how and the Computer Terminal Corporation was looking to develop what was a trend for a hot minute, called programmable terminals. And given the doubling of speeds those gave way to microcomputers within just a few years. The Intel 8080 was a 2 MHz chip that became the basis of the Altair 8800, SOL-20, and IMSAI 8080. By then Motorola, Zilog, and MOS Technology were hot on their heals releasing the Z80 and 6802 processors. But Gary Kildall wrote CP/M, one of the first operating systems, initially for the 8080 prior to porting it to other chips. Sales had been good and Intel had been growing. By 1979 they saw the future was in chips and opened a new office in Haifa, Israiel, where they designed the 8088, which clocked in at 4.77 MHz. IBM chose this chip to be used in the original IBM Personal Computer. IBM was going to use an 8-bit chip, but the team at Microsoft talked them into going with the 16-bit 8088 and thus created the foundation of what would become the Wintel or Intel architecture, or x86, which would dominate the personal computer market for the next 40 years. One reason IBM trusted Intel is that they had proven to be innovators. They had effectively invented the integrated circuit, then the microprocessor, then coined Moore's Law, and by 1980 had built a 15,000 person company capable of shipping product in large quantities. They were intentional about culture, looking for openness, distributed decision making, and trading off bureaucracy for figuring out cool stuff. That IBM decision to use that Intel chip is one of the most impactful in the entire history of personal computers. Based on Microsoft DOS and then Windows being able to run on the architecture, nearly every laptop and desktop would run on that original 8088/86 architecture. Based on the standards, Intel and Microsoft would both market that their products ran not only on those IBM PCs but also on any PC using the same architecture and so IBM's hold on the computing world would slowly wither. On the back of all these chips, revenue shot past $1 billion for the first time in 1983. IBM bought 12 percent of the company in 1982 and thus gave them the Big Blue seal of approval, something important event today. And the hits kept on coming with the 286 to 486 chips coming along during the 1980s. Intel brought the 80286 to market and it was used in the IBM PC AT in 1984. This new chip brought new ways to manage addresses, the first that could do memory management, and the first Intel chip where we saw protected mode so we could get virtual memory and multi-tasking.  All of this was made possible with over a hundred thousand transistors. At the time the original Mac used a Motorola 68000 but the sales were sluggish while they flourished at IBM and slowly we saw the rise of the companies cloning the IBM architecture, like Compaq. Still using those Intel chips.  Jerry Sanders had actually left Fairchild a little before Noyce and Moore to found AMD and ended up cloning the instructions in the 80286, after entering into a technology exchange agreement with Intel. This led to AMD making the chips at volume and selling them on the open market. AMD would go on to fast-follow Intel for decades. The 80386 would go on to simply be known as the Intel 386, with over 275,000 transistors. It was launched in 1985, but we didn't see a lot of companies use them until the early 1990s. The 486 came in 1989. Now we were up to a million transistors as well as a math coprocessor. We were 50 times faster than the 4004 that had come out less than 20 years earlier.  I don't want to take anything away from the phenomenal run of research and development at Intel during this time but the chips and cores and amazing developments were on autopilot. The 80s also saw them invest half a billion in reinvigorating their manufacturing plants. With quality manufacturing allowing for a new era of printing chips, the 90s were just as good to Intel. I like to think of this as the Pentium decade with the first Pentium in 1993. 32-bit here we come. Revenues jumped 50 percent that year closing in on $9 billion. Intel had been running an advertising campaign around Intel Inside. This represented a shift from the IBM PC to the Intel. The Pentium Pro came in 1995 and we'd crossed 5 million transistors in each chip. And the brand equity was rising fast. More importantly, so was revenue. 1996 saw revenues pass $20 billion. The personal computer was showing up in homes and on desks across the world and most had Intel Inside - in fact we'd gone from Intel inside to Pentium Inside. 1997 brought us the Pentium II with over 7 million transistors, the Xeon came in 1998 for servers, and 1999 Pentium III. By 2000 they introduced the first gigahertz processor at Intel and they announced the next generation after Pentium: Itanium, finally moving the world to the 64 bit processor.  As processor speeds slowed they were able to bring multi-core processors and massive parallelism out of the hallowed halls of research and to the desktop computer in 2005. 2006 saw Intel go from just Windows to the Mac. And we got 45 nanometer logic technology in 2006 using hafnium-based high-k for transistor gates represented a shift from the silicon-gated transistors of the 60s and allowed them to move to hundreds of millions of transistors packed into a single chip. i3, i5, i7, an on. The chips now have over a couple hundred million transistors per core with 8 cores on a chip potentially putting us over 1.7 or 1.8 transistors per chip. Microsoft, IBM, Apple, and so many others went through huge growth and sales jumps then retreated dealing with how to run a company of the size they suddenly became. This led each to invest heavily into ending a lost decade effectively with R&D - like when IBM built the S/360 or Apple developed the iMac and then iPod. Intel's strategy had been research and development. Build amazing products and they sold. Bigger, faster, better. The focus had been on power. But mobile devices were starting to take the market by storm. And the ARM chip was more popular on those because with a reduced set of instructions they could use less power and be a bit more versatile.  Intel coined Moore's Law. They know that if they don't find ways to pack more and more transistors into smaller and smaller spaces then someone else will. And while they haven't been huge in the RISC-based System on a Chip space, they do continue to release new products and look for the right product-market fit. Just like they did when they went from more DRAM and SRAM to producing the types of chips that made them into a powerhouse. And on the back of a steadily rising revenue stream that's now over $77 billion they seem poised to be able to whether any storm. Not only on the back of R&D but also some of the best manufacturing in the industry.  Chips today are so powerful and small and contain the whole computer from the era of those Pentiums. Just as that 4004 chip contained a whole ENIAC. This gives us a nearly limitless canvas to design software. Machine learning on a SoC expands the reach of what that software can process. Technology is moving so fast in part because of the amazing work done at places like Intel, AMD, and ARM. Maybe that positronic brain that Asimov promised us isn't as far off as it seems. But then, I thought that in the 90s as well so I guess we'll see.        

Stephanie is joined today by a very special guest, Andrea Goulet. Andrea founded Empathy In Tech as part of writing her book Empathy-Driven Software Development (https://empathyintech.com/). She's also the founder of the community Legacy Code Rocks (https://www.legacycode.rocks/) and the Chief Vision Officer of two companies: Corgibytes (https://corgibytes.com/) and Heartware (https://www.heartware.dev/) (which provides financial support to keep Empathy In Tech running). Stephanie has strong opinions about the concept of "Makers and Menders" that the Corgibytes folks have written/spoken about, especially around those personas and gender stereotypes. Andrea joins Steph to evolve the conversation and add nuance to the discussion about legacy code/maintenance in our community. This episode is brought to you by Airbrake (https://airbrake.io/?utm_campaign=Q3_2022%3A%20Bike%20Shed%20Podcast%20Ad&utm_source=Bike%20Shed&utm_medium=website). Visit Frictionless error monitoring and performance insight for your app stack. Makers and Menders from Corgibytes (https://corgibytes.com/blog/2015/08/14/makers-vs-menders/) Empathy in Tech (https://empathyintech.com/) Legacy Code Rocks (https://www.legacycode.rocks/) Forget Technical Debt — Here's How to Build Technical Wealth (https://review.firstround.com/forget-technical-debt-heres-how-to-build-technical-wealth) Equal Partners by Kate Mangino (https://bookshop.org/p/books/equal-partners-improving-gender-equality-at-home-kate-mangino/18336353) Sustainable Web Development Episode (https://www.bikeshed.fm/368) Transcript: AD: thoughtbot is thrilled to announce our own incubator launching this year. If you are a non-technical founding team with a business idea that involves a web or mobile app, we encourage you to apply for our eight-week program. We'll help you move forward with confidence in your team, your product vision, and a roadmap for getting you there. Learn more and apply at tbot.io/incubator. STEPHANIE: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Stephanie Minn., And today I'm joined by a very special guest, Andrea Goulet. Hi, Andrea. ANDREA: Hello, thanks for having me. STEPHANIE: So here on The Bike Shed, we like to start by sharing something new in our world. Could you tell us a bit about yourself and anything new going on for you? ANDREA: Yeah, so I have a background in strategic communications, and then kind of made a windy journey over to software. And so, for the past 13 years, I've been focused on modernizing legacy systems. And legacy is kind of a loose term; something you write today can be legacy. But essentially, we kind of help modernize any kind of software, any language, any platform, any framework. And so, over the course of doing that, in the work that I did before I came to software, I had a very technical understanding of empathy and communications and had just done a lot of that. And I just noticed how much that mattered in creating healthy and sustainable codebases. So now I'm kind of taking that experience, and I've got a book contract called "Empathy-Driven Software Development." So I've been working on just diving into a lot of the really deep research. So that's been kind of my focus for the past two years. And it's been really surprising because there were things that were positioned as truths, and then it's like, wait a second, neuroscience is completely upending everything. So it's been a fun learning journey. And I'm excited to share some of the things that I've learned over the years, especially [laughs] in the past two years with this book. So that is the new thing with me. And it's...I was telling you before it just feels like a constant new thing. Anybody who's written a book...it's the hardest thing I've ever done, so... [laughs] STEPHANIE: Yeah, that sounds tough but also kind of exciting because you're learning so many new things that then kind of shape how you view the world, it sounds like. ANDREA: Yeah. Yeah, it really does. And I think I really like diving into the details. And I think what started this was...my business partner, Scott, at the time, really embodied the stereotypical 2010 software developer down to the scruffy beard and dark-rimmed glasses. And what I found incredibly interesting was he had this belief of I'm good with machines, but I'm bad with people. And he just had this really deeply ingrained. On the flip side, I had this belief of, oh, I'm good with people, but I'm bad with machines. I'll never learn how to code. And I found that really interesting. And personally, I had to go through a journey because we went on...it was the first time either of us had ever been on a podcast. So this was about ten years ago. And at the end of the podcast, Scott was the only one on there. And he said, you know, the person asked about his origin story and about our company Corgibytes. And he was like, "Yeah, you know, Andrea is amazing. She's our non-technical founder." And by that time, I had been coding next to him for like three years. And I was like, why the heck would you call me non-technical? And I just felt this...what is it that I have to do to prove it to you? Do I have to actually go get a CS degree? I know I'm self-taught, but does that mean that I'm not good enough? What certificates do I need? Do I need to sit down next to you? Do I need to change my lifestyle? Do I need to look like you? So I was really upset [laughing] and just thinking through, how dare you? How dare you label me as non-technical? And Scott is very quiet and patient, great with people, I think. [laughs] And he listened and said, "I use the words that you use to describe yourself. When we were in a sales meeting right before that phone call, I paid attention to how you introduced yourself, and I pretty much used the same words. So when you call yourself technical, I will too." That shattered my world. It shattered my identity because then it put the responsibility of belonging on me. I couldn't blame other people for my not feeling like I didn't belong. That journey has just been so profound. This is what I see a lot of times with empathy is that we have these kinds of self-identities, but then we're afraid to open up and share. And we make these assumptions of other people, but, at the same time, there's real-world evidence. And so, how do we interpret that? In addition to this, Scott...like, part of the reason I called myself non-technical was because all of the people I saw who were like me or had my background, that's the word that was used to describe someone like me. And when I would go to a conference, you know, I have a feminine presentation. And this was ten years ago. My very first conference was 300 software developers, and there were probably about 295 men. And I was one of five women in the room. And because I looked so different and because I stood out, the first question that anybody would ask me, and this was about 30% to 40% of introductions, was, "Are you technical or non-technical?" And I had to choose between this binary. And I was like; I don't know. Am I technical? Like, is it a CEO that can code? I don't know. But then I have this background. And so I would just default to, "No, I guess I'm non-technical," because that's what felt safe because that's what they assumed. And I just didn't know, and I didn't realize that I was then building in this identity. And so then, as part of trying to create a warm and inclusive organization, we did one of the unconscious bias surveys from Harvard. And what astonished me when I did that myself was that I didn't have a whole lot of bias, like, there was some. But the most profound bias was against women in the workplace, and it stood out a big one. I was like, how is it that I can be someone who's a fierce advocate, but then that's my own bias against people like me? What the heck is going on? So really exploring all of this. And I think Scott and I have had so many different conversations over the years. We actually ended up getting married. And so we have a personal reason to figure a lot of this stuff out too. And when we start to have those conversations about who am I and what's important to me, then all of a sudden, we can start creating better code. We can start working together better as a team. We can start advocating for our needs. Other people know what we need ahead of time. And we're not operating out of defensiveness; we're operating out of collaboration and creativity. So the book and kind of everything is inspired by my background and my lived experience but then also seeing Scott and his struggles, too, because he had been told like, "You're a geek. Stay in the computers. Stay in the code. You're not allowed to talk to customers because you're bad at it," and flat out was told that. So how do we overcome these labels that people have put on us, and then we've made part of our own identity? And which ones are useful, and then which ones are not? Because sometimes labels can create a sense of community and affinity and so how do we know? And it's complicated, but the same thing, software is complicated. We can take skills like empathy and communication. We can look at them schematically and operationalize them when we look at them in kind of detail. So that's what I enjoy doing is looking under the hood and figuring out how does all this stuff work? So... [laughs] STEPHANIE: I did want to respond to a few things that I heard you say when you're talking about going to a conference and feeling very much in the minority. I went to my first RailsConf in 2022, my first RailsConf in person, and I was shocked at the gender imbalance. And I feel like every time I used the women's restroom; I was looking around and trying to make a connection with someone and have a bit of a kinship and be like, oh yes, you are here with me in this space. And then we would have a conversation and walk out together, and that felt very meaningful because the rest of the space, you know, I wasn't finding my people. And so I feel that very hard. I think this is also a good time to transition into the idea of makers and menders, especially because we have been talking about labels. So you all talked about this distinction between the different types of work in software development. So we have greenfield work, and that is writing code from scratch, making all the decisions about how to set up an application, exploring a whole new domain that hasn't been codified yet. And that is one type of work. But there's also mender-type work, which is working in existing applications, legacy code, refactoring, and dealing with the complexity of something that has stood the test of time but may or may not have gotten a lot of investment or care and bringing that codebase back to life if you will. And when I first heard about that distinction, I was like, yes, I'm a mender. This is what I like to do. But the more I thought about it, I started to also feel conflicted because I felt pain doing that work as well. ANDREA: Oh, interesting, yeah. STEPHANIE: Especially in the context of teams that I've been on when that work was not valued. And I was doing maintenance work and fixing bugs and either specifically being assigned to do that work or just doing it because I knew it needed to be done and no one else was doing it. And that had caused me a lot of frustration before because I would look around and be on a team with mostly White men and be like, why aren't they picking up any of this work as well? And so I was thinking about how I both felt very seen by the acknowledgment that this is work, and this is valid work, and it's important work, but also a little bit confused because I'm like, how did I get here? Did I pigeonhole myself into doing this work? Because the more I did it, the better I got at it, the more comfortable and, to whatever degree, enjoyed it. But at the same time, I'm not totally sure I was given the opportunity to do greenfield work earlier in my career. That could have changed where my interests lie. ANDREA: Yeah, it is. And it's funny that you mentioned this because I actually I'm a maker. But yeah, I created this community, and I'm known for this thing. And I had a very similar experience to how do I exist as someone who's different in this kind of community? And I think part of it is, you know, there's a great quote by George Box, who is a statistician, and he says, "All models are wrong; some are useful." And I think that's kind of the whole idea with the maker-mender is that it is a signal to be like, hey, if you like fixing stuff...because there is so much shame, like, that's what we were responding to. And Scott had the opposite problem of what you have experienced, where he was only allowed to work on greenfield work. They were like, "No, you're a good developer. So we want you working on features. We won't let you fix the bugs. We won't let you do the work that you like doing." And so that's why he wanted to create Corgibytes because he's like, "This work needs to be done." I am so personally passionate about this. And when we were having these conversations 13 years ago, I was talking to him about product/market fit and stuff like that. And I was like, "You like fixing software, and there's a lot of software out there to be fixed." I just was very, very confused as to why this kind of existed. And we had been told flat out, "You're never going to find anybody else like Scott. You're never going to be able to build a company around people who find a lot of joy in doing this work." And I think that this comes down to identity and kind of the way that Legacy Code Rocks was built too. A lot of the signaling that we put out there and the messaging and stuff really came from Scott's feeling of, like, I want to find more people like me. So being in the women's bathroom and like, how do I find more menders? Or how do I find people...because we were walking through a Barnes & Noble, and it was like a maker fest, maker everything. And he's like, "I don't have a community. There's nowhere for me to go to create these meaningful connections," exactly like you were saying. "I have maybe two people in my network." And then we were at a conference in 2015. We were at the large agile conference. And it was one of the first ones that I've been to that had a software craft track. And we met like 20 people who were really, like, I just saw Scott light up in a way that I hadn't seen him light up because he could geek out on this level that I hadn't seen him do before. And so when I asked, like, "How do you guys stay in touch afterwards?" And they're like, "Oh no, we don't. We don't know how to build a community." And it's like, well, okay, well, we can get that started. To your response of like, how do you operate when it is presented as a binary? And it's like, am I this, or am I this? This kind of gets down to the idea of identity-wise, is it a binary, or is it a spectrum? I tend to think of it kind of like an introvert-extrovert spectrum where it's like there is no wrong or right, and you can move in different places. And I think being able to explain the nuances of the modeling around how we came up with this messaging can get lost a lot of times. But I'm with you, like, how...and that's kind of something now where it's like, okay, maybe my role was to just start this conversation, but then everybody's having these ideas. But there are people who genuinely feel seen, you know. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's really interesting because what I'm hearing is that when there's this dominant narrative of what a developer should be, and should be good at, and what they should do, it's kind of like what you were saying earlier about how hard it was for you to claim that identity yourself. People who feel differently aren't seen, and that's, I think, the problem. And I'm very, very interested in the gender aspect of it because one thing that I've noticed is that a lot of my female developer friends do do more of that mending work. So when you talk about feeling like there was no community out there, it just wasn't represented at the time, you know, a decade ago for sure. And still, even now, I think we're just starting to elevate those voices and that work. I wanted to share that at thoughtbot; we have different teams for different business verticals. And so we do have a rapid validation prototyping team. We do have a greenfield like MVP, V1 product team. And then we also have a team, Boost, the team that I'm on. That is more team augmentation, working with legacy code and existing systems. And it was not lost on me that Boost has the most women. [laughs] ANDREA: Yeah, because you have the concept of cognitive load and mental load. STEPHANIE: Yes. ANDREA: Women at home end up taking a lot more of this invisible labor that's behind the scenes. Like, you're picking the kids up from school, or you're doing the laundry, or all these things that are just behind the scenes. And this was actually something...so when Scott and I also got married, that's when I first became aware of this, and it was very similar. And it was, okay, how do I...because Scott and I, both in our business and in our personal partnership, we wanted it to be based on equity. And then also, like, how do I show up? And for me, the hardest thing with that was letting go of control where it's like, it has to be a certain way. It's hard for me to comment on the broader enterprise level because what I see at Corgibytes is we have gender parity. That's been pretty balanced over the course of our..., and we're a small boutique company, so it's different. But then, in the larger community of Legacy Code Rocks, it tends to be more male. There are actually fewer women in there. And I think, too, like there's this idea of testers and QA, like, I think that falls in there as well, and that's heavily dominant. And I think sometimes it's like, oh...and I think this kind of comes to the problem of it, like, it's the way that we think about the work in general. And this might be useful just to think about kind of the way that it came about was, you know, makers and menders was we were putting together [laughs] actually this talk for this conference that we went to. And my background in marketing, I was trying to wrap my brain around when is it appropriate for mending? And I had my marketing degree. It's like, oh, the product lifecycle. And Scott's retort was, "It needs to be a circle. We're agile, so it needs to be a circle." And I was like, this doesn't make any sense. Because look, if you have maturity and then you have it...oh my gosh, it'll link back to innovation, and then you can do new stuff. And so yeah, I think when we describe makers and menders, and this is true with any label, the idea in the broader model is that makers and menders aren't necessarily distinct, and your team should 1,000%...everyone should be contributing. And if you only have one person who's doing this work, you're at a detriment. That's not healthy for your codebase like; this should be baked in. And the mender is more of like, this is where I get my joy. It's more of an opt-in. But I think that your observation about the invisible labor and how that gets translated to maintenance work is accurate. A lot of times, like when Scott was describing his thing, it's like, there's the movie "Office Space." I might be dating myself. But there's this guy, Milton, and it's like, "Just go to the basement." He was told maintenance is where good software careers go to die. [laughs] And so over the years, it's like, how do we celebrate this and make it more part of the maker work? And it's similar to how introverts and extroverts...it's like, we all work together, and you need all of it. But there is an extrovert bias. And extroverts are seen more as, oh, they have leadership traits and stuff. But increasingly, we're starting to see, no, actually, that's not the only way that you can be effective. So I think it's hard. And I think it does come down to belonging. And I think that there are also different cultural impacts there. And it comes down to just a lot of different lived experiences. And I so appreciate you sharing your point of view. And I'm curious, what would help you feel more like you belong? Is it the work and the environment that you're in that's kind of contributing to this feeling? Or is it other things in general or? STEPHANIE: Okay, so I did want to address real quick what you were saying about mental load and household labor because I think I really only started thinking about this after I read a book called "Equal Partners" by Kate Mangino, where she talks about how to improve gender equality at home, and I loved that book so much. And I suddenly started to see it everywhere in life and obviously at work too. And that's kind of what really drove my thinking around this conversation, maintenance work being considered less skilled labor or things that get offloaded to someone else. I think that really frustrates me because I just don't believe that's true. And to get back to what you were asking about what would make me feel more seen or valued, I think it's systemic. But I also think that organizations can make change within their cultures around incentives especially. When you are only promoted if you do greenfield work and write thousands of lines of code, [laughs] that's what people will want to do. [laughs] And not even just promotions, but who gets a kudos in Slack? Or when do you get positive encouragement? As a consultant, I've worked on different client teams that had different values, and that was when I really struggled to be in those environments. I have a really strong memory of working on a greenfield project, but there was another male developer who was just cranking out features and doing all of this work and then demoing it to stakeholders. But then there was one feature that he had implemented but had faked the data. So he hadn't finished the backend part of it but just used fake data to demo the user interface to stakeholders. And then he moved on to something else. And I was like, wait; this isn't done. [laughs] But at that point, stakeholders thought it was done. They thought that it was complete. They gave him positive feedback for finishing it. And then I had to come in and be like, "This isn't done. Someone needs to work on this." And that person ended up being me. And that was really frustrating because I was doing that behind-the-scenes work, the under-the-hood work for something that had already been attributed to someone else. And yeah, I think about that a lot and what systems or what the environment was that led to that particular dynamic. MID-ROLL AD: Debugging errors can be a developer's worst nightmare...but it doesn't have to be. Airbrake is an award-winning error monitoring, performance, and deployment tracking tool created by developers for developers that can actually help cut your debugging time in half. So why do developers love Airbrake? It has all of the information that web developers need to monitor their application - including error management, performance insights, and deploy tracking! Airbrake's debugging tool catches all of your project errors, intelligently groups them, and points you to the issue in the code so you can quickly fix the bug before customers are impacted. In addition to stellar error monitoring, Airbrake's lightweight APM helps developers to track the performance and availability of their application through metrics like HTTP requests, response times, error occurrences, and user satisfaction. Finally, Airbrake Deploy Tracking helps developers track trends, fix bad deploys, and improve code quality. Since 2008, Airbrake has been a staple in the Ruby community and has grown to cover all major programming languages. Airbrake seamlessly integrates with your favorite apps to include modern features like single sign-on and SDK-based installation. From testing to production, Airbrake notifiers have your back. Your time is valuable, so why waste it combing through logs, waiting for user reports, or retrofitting other tools to monitor your application? You literally have nothing to lose. Head on over to airbrake.io/try/bikeshed to create your FREE developer account today! STEPHANIE: Do you have any advice for leaders who want to make sure there's more equity for people who like to do mending and legacy code work? ANDREA: Yeah, absolutely. I am so grateful for your questions and your perspective because this is not something that's talked about a lot, and it is so important. I wrote an article for First Round Review. This was in 2016 or 2017. And it was called "Forget Technical Debt — Here's How to Build Technical Wealth," and so if you want to link to it in the show notes. It's a really long article and that goes into some of the specifics around it, but it's meant for CEOs. It really is meant for CEOs. And I do think that you're right; some of it is that we have lionized this culture of making and the work that is more visible. And it's like, oh, okay, great, here's all the visual design stuff. That's fantastic, but then recognizing there's a lot of stuff that's behind the scenes too. So in terms of leaders, I think some of it is you have to think about long-term thinking instead of just the short-term. Don't just chase the new shiny. Also, you need to be really aware of what your return on investment is. Because the developers that are working on maintaining and making sure that your mission-critical systems don't fail those are the ones that have the highest value in your organization because if that system goes down, your company makes money. Greenfield work, yes, it's very...and I'm not downplaying greenfield work for sure. I'm definitely, [laughs] like, I love doing that stuff. I love doing the generating phase. And at the same time, if we only look towards kind of more the future bias...there's a great book that we were featured in called "The Innovation Delusion" that talks about this more in general. But if we only look at the visible work that's coming, then we forget what's important now. And so for leaders, if you're running a software company, know where your mission-critical systems are and recognize the importance of maintaining them. That's the very first step. The second step is to recognize the complexities of a situation, like, to think about things in terms of complex systems instead of complicated systems. And I'll describe the difference. So when I came to software, I had been working in the creative field, like in advertising, and branding, and copywriting, and all that. And we got inputs. We kind of ran it through this process, and then we delivered. And we did a demo and all of that stuff. It was when is the timeline? When is it done? Big air quotes. And we were pretty predictably able to deliver on our delivery day. Sometimes things would go wrong, but we kind of had a sense because we had done the same pattern over and over again. You don't get that in legacy code because the variables are so immense that you cannot predict in the same way. You have to adopt a new strategy for how do you measure effectiveness. And the idea of measuring software productivity in terms of new features or lines of code, like, that's something that goes all the way back to Dykstra [laughs] in the 1970s around, is that the right way? Well, a lot of people who code are like, "No, that's not." This is a debate that goes back to the earliest days of computing. But I think that the companies that are able to build resilient systems have a competitive advantage. If a leader wants to look at their systems, whether that is a social system and the people in their organization or whether or not it's their software if you look at it from a systems thinking, like, there are interactions that I need to pay attention to not just process, that is super key as well. And then the last one is to recognize, like, one of our core values is communication is just as important as code. I would be remiss to neglect empathy and communication in part of this, but that really is so important. Because when we position things in terms of...and I don't know as much about thoughtbot and kind of the overall strategy, but kind of an anti-pattern I have seen just in general in organizational behavior is that when you structure teams functionally and silo them, you're not getting that diversity of thought. So the way that we approach it is, like, put a mender on a maker team because they're going to have a different perspective. And then, you can work together to get things out the door faster and value each other's perspectives and recognize strengths and shadows. So, for me, as a maker, I'm like, I've got a huge optimism bias, and we can go through all this stuff. And for Scott, it's like he struggles to know when he's done. Like, for me, I'm like, cool, we're 80% done. I got it. We're good to go. And for Scott, he'll work on something, and then it's like, I have to stop him. So recognizing that we help each other, that kind of thought diversity and experience diversity goes across so many different vectors, not just makers and menders. But I think, to me, it's about reframing value so that you're not just thinking about what it is right now in this moment. And I think a lot of this comes down to investor strategy too. Because if you've got an investor that you're trying to appease and they're just trying to make short-term monetary gains, it's much harder to think in terms of long term. And I think it's developers understanding business, business understanding the struggles of developers and how they need lots of focus time, and how estimating is really freaking hard, and why if you demand something, it's going to be probably not right. And then coming up with frameworks together where...how can I describe this in a way? So to me, it really is about empathy and communication at the end of the day when we're talking about interactions and how do we operationalize it. STEPHANIE: I like what you said about reframing value because I do believe that it starts from the top. When you value sustainability...my co-host, Joël, had an episode about sustainability as a value in software development. But then that changes, like I mentioned before, the incentive structures and who gets rewarded for what type of work. And I also think that it's not only diverse types of people who like doing different types of work, but there is value in doing both. And I know we talked about it being a spectrum earlier, but I strongly believe that doing the legacy code work and experiencing what it's like to try to change a system that you are like, I have no idea why this decision was made or like, why is the code like this? That will help inform you. If you do do greenfield work, those are really important skills, I think, to bring to that other type of work as well. Because then you're thinking about, okay, how can I make decisions that will help the developers down the line when I'm no longer on this project? ANDREA: Exactly, which is a form of empathy. [laughs] STEPHANIE: Yeah, it is a form of empathy, exactly. And the reverse is also true too. I was thinking about, okay, how can working in greenfield code help inform working with legacy code? And I was like, oh, you have so much energy when the world is completely open to you, and you can make whatever decisions to deliver value. And I've really struggled working in legacy code, feeling like I don't have any options and that I have to repeat a pattern that's already been set or that I'm just kind of stuck with what I've been given. But I think that there is some value in injecting more of that agency into working with legacy code as well. ANDREA: Well, and I think, too, I think you hit it on the head because, like I said, with the mental load at home, it was like, I had to be okay with things failing where it's like, it wasn't exactly the way I would do it, and I had to be okay with that. Like, oh, the dishes aren't put in the dishwasher exactly the same way I would do it. I'm not going behind it. And like, okay, it's not perfect. That's...whoo, it's going to be okay. And I think that's kind of what we experience, too, is this idea of we have to figure out how we work together in a way that is sustainable. And I think that, similar to my experience with the technical, non-technical piece, there is an onus. Now, granted, I want to be very careful here to not...there is trauma, and there is absolutely horrific discrimination and abuse. And that is not what I'm talking about here in terms of power dynamics. I am talking more about self-identity and self-expression. And I think that if you are in a community like makers and menders, yeah, we're less represented. There is a little bit of an onus, the technical, non-technical, like the onus of understanding what non-technical means and where I can push back is really important work for me to do. Because what I was surprised with was everyone there, like, when I started asking...so my response ended up being, "Help me understand, why did you ask that question?" And I took ownership of the narrative. And it was like, oh, well, what I found was that most of the people were like, if you're a recruiter, I don't want to waste your time with a bunch of stuff that you don't want to talk about. And then being able to say, "Oh, okay, I can see that, and you assumed that I was a recruiter because of the way I looked. And I understand the intention here. Next time, if I'm at a software conference, assume that I know how to code and assume that I'm here for a reason." And a great opening question is, "What brought you here?" I'm like, oh, okay, when we ask a close-ended question, we position things as a binary, like, are you technical or non-technical? That creates a lot of cognitive dissonance, and it's hard. But if I open it up and say, "What brought you here?" Then I can create my own narrative. There is an aspect of setting boundaries and pushing back a little bit like you said, agency. And that can be really hard because it gets at the core of who you are, and then you have to really explore it. And what I found, at least, is in the majority, there have been exceptions, but in the majority of the male-dominated groups that I've been in in my career in software, the majority are very welcoming and want me to be there. But I feel inadequate, and it's more impostor syndrome than I think it is people being discriminatory. Learning about the differences between that and where is my responsibility and where's your responsibility in this that's a tough tension to play. STEPHANIE: Absolutely. And I think that's why it's really important that we're having a conversation like this. I think what you're getting at is just the harm of the default assumption that is chronic, [laughs] at least for me sometimes. And you mentioned earlier the history of computing a little bit. And I was really excited about that because I did a little bit of digging and learned about women's history in computing and how after World War II, programming, you know, there were so many women. In fact, I think by 1960, more than one in four programmers were women, and they were working on mission-critical work like for NASA for, you know, during World War II for code-breaking. And I read that at the time, that work was deemed boring and tedious, and that's why men didn't want to do it. They wanted to work on hardware, which was what was the cool, creative, interesting work. And the computing work was just second class. That's changed, but in some ways, I'm thinking about, okay, where are we now? And to what degree are we kind of continuing this legacy? And how can we evolve or move beyond it? ANDREA: Yeah, you're absolutely right. And in some of the research for the book, one of the things I learned is a lot of people know the name, John von Neumann. He created the von Neumann architecture, that is the foundation of all the hardware that most of us use today. And the very first kind of general purpose digital computer, ENIAC, all...I think it was eight of the people who were programmers for that were women. That team was led by John von Neumann's wife, Klára, and you never hear about Klára. You have to go digging for that. And The Smithsonian actually just about 8, 10 years ago did a big anniversary and then realized none of those women were invited to the press conferences. They were not invited. And so there is kind of this...similar to generational wealth, it's the thing that gets passed down. Like, if you're in the rooms in the early days...there was a quote by John Backus, who created FORTRAN and the Backus–Naur principle, where he talked about programming in the 1950s. He has an essay, and he was like, yeah, I mean, an idea was anybody who claims it, and we never cited our sources. And so it was whoever had the biggest ego was the one who got credit. And everyone's like, great; you're a hero. And so I think that's kind of the beginning of it. And so if you weren't invited into the room, because in the 1950s, in addition to gender, there was legislation that prevented...we weren't even allowed to use the same bathrooms. You had White bathrooms and Black bathrooms. So you had very serious barriers for many different people getting into that room, and I think that gets to the idea of intersectionality as well. So the more barriers that you had, the harder it was going to be. And so then you get the stereotypes, and then you get the media who promotes the stereotypes. And so that is what happened to me. So I grew up in the '80s and '90s, and just every movie I watched, every TV show portrayed somebody who was, quote, "good" with computers in a very specific way. I didn't see myself in it. So I was like, oh, I'm not there. But then, when I talk to Scott, he's like, "Oh, I never saw that. I never saw the discrimination. I just saw this stuff." That's part of it is that if you were in that position where discrimination, or difficulties, or stereotypes had been invisible to you, the onus is on you to learn and to listen. If you are in a situation where you feel like you have been in the minority, the onus is on you to find ways to become more empowered. And a lot of times, that is setting boundaries. It's advocating for yourself. It's recognizing your self-worth. And those are all things that are really hard. And saying, hey, if we want to be sustainable, everyone needs to contribute. I'm happy to train everyone, but this is not going to work. And being able to frame it, too, in terms of value, like, why? Why is it a benefit for everyone building that empathy? And you're right, I mean, there are absolutely cultures where...who was it? I think it was Edward Deming. And he said, "A single person is powerless in the face of a bad system." And so if you're in a system that isn't going to work, recognizing that and can you move into a different system? Or can you change it from within? And those are all different questions that you've got to ask based on your own fortitude, your own interests, your own resources, your own situation. There is no easy question. But it's always work. And no matter who you are, it's always work. [laughs] STEPHANIE: Yeah, yeah. I joined as co-host of this podcast just a few months ago. And I had to do a lot of reflecting on what I wanted to get out of it and what my goals were. And that's why I'm really excited to have you on here and to be using this platform to talk about things that are important to me and things that I think more people should know about or think about. So before we wrap up, Andrea, do you have anything else you want to say? ANDREA: I want to reinforce that if you feel joy from mending, it's awesome. And there are communities like legacycode.rocks. We have MenderCon, and it's a celebration of software maintenance. So it can be really great. We have a virtual meetup every Wednesday. And there's a kind of a core group of people who come, and they're like, it's like therapy because there are a lot of people who are in your situation where it's like, I'm the only person on my team who cares about automated tests, and I have no idea like...and just having people who kind of share in that struggle can be really helpful, so finding your community. And then I think software maintenance is really, really critical and really important, and I think we see it. Like, we're seeing in the news every day in terms of these larger systems going down. Just recently, Southwest Airlines and all of these flights got canceled. The maintenance work is so, so valuable. If you feel like a mender and you feel like that fits your identity, just know that there is a lot of worth in the work that you are doing, an immense amount of worth in the work that you are doing, and to continue to advocate for that. If you are a maker, yes, there is absolutely worth in the work you're doing, but learn about menders. Learn how to work together. And if you are a leader of an organization, recognize that all of these different perspectives can work together. And, again, reframe the value. So I am so grateful that you framed the conversation this way. It's so important. I'm very, very grateful to hear from you and your point of view. And I hope that you continue to push the narrative like this because it's really important. STEPHANIE: Aww, thanks. And thank you so much for being on the podcast. ANDREA: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Thanks for having me. STEPHANIE: Show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. JOËL: This show has been produced and edited by Mandy Moore. STEPHANIE: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review in iTunes. It really helps other folks find the show. JOËL: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us @_bikeshed, or you can reach me @joelquen on Twitter. STEPHANIE: Or reach both of us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. JOËL: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. ALL: Byeeeeeeeeee!!!!! ANNOUNCER: This podcast is brought to you by thoughtbot, your expert strategy, design, development, and product management partner. We bring digital products from idea to success and teach you how because we care. Learn more at thoughtbot.com.

The birth of ENIAC. A "sophisticated attack" (someone got phished). A cryptographic hack enabled by a security warning. Valentine's Day Patch Tuesday. Apple closes spyware-sized 0-day hole. Original music by Edith Mudge Got questions/suggestions/stories to share? Email tips@sophos.com Twitter @NakedSecurity

During the Second World War, six talented mathematicians were brought together to make history. These women had one mission: to program the world's first and only supercomputer. Speaking with Rachel Dinning, Kathy Kleiman explores the vital but overlooked role the “Eniac 6” played in the history of computing during and after the Second World War. (Ad) Kathy Klieman is the author of Proving Ground: The Untold Story of the Six Women Who Programmed the World's First Modern Computer (Hurst, 2022). Buy it now from Amazon:https://www.amazon.co.uk/Proving-Ground-Untold-Programmed-Computer/dp/178738862X/?tag=bbchistory045-21&ascsubtag=historyextra-social-histboty Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Wie sich die Realität in einem Computermodell nachstellen lässt und wo die Grenzen von Computersimulationen liegen, erklärt Claus Beisbart von der Universität Bern in dieser Folge.

Built during WWII, the world's first electronic computer, the ENIAC, was an engineering marvel. But at 80 ft long and 6 ft tall it was mute until it was brought to life by six young women mathematicians who figured out how to program it.

Jace is joined by writer Matt Kindt to talk about a wide variety of titles. From the mysterious Hero Trade to the recently released They're All Terrible, the guys touch on Eniac and dive deep into BRZRKR while teasing what's to come with Hairball and Spy Superb.

A fine and definitely seasonally-appropriate Monday crossword from Jennifer Nutt, creator of today's puzzle. You didn't need to have a brain the size of an ENIAC, or even an IMAC, for that matter, to succeed, really just a GIFT with language, to solve this GIFT of a crossword.Contact Info:We love listener mail! Drop us a line, crosswordpodcast@icloud.com.Also, we're on FaceBook, so feel free to drop by there and strike up a conversation!

Episode 86 is with Claire Rafson, Investor at Eniac Ventures! Based out of Eniac's New York office, Claire is passionate about democratizing access to capital, making essential services like FinTech and health care more accessible, and embedding ESG (environmental, social, and governance) principles into companies. Eniac Ventures leads seed rounds in bold founders who use code to create transformational companies. Armed with over 80 years of combined experience building their own companies, Eniac does more than just provide capital. They provide a platform through an expansive network with a strong belief in community at the heart of their investment approach. We talk to Claire about her journey into VC. She details her day to day as an investor, what Eniac looks for in transformational founders, and how they're pushing the bar on democratizing access to capital. Eniac Ventures https://eniac.vc/ Timestamps 2:22 - Intro to Claire 8:00 - Mentorship & Representation 10:33 - Managing Mental Health 13:28 - Interviewing for Venture Opportunities 19:05 - Eniac Ventures 21:05 - Claire's Day to Day 25:50 - What VC's Look for in Founder Meetings 32:00 - Creating Strong Deal Flow 36:15 - Quantity vs. Quality 38:03 - “Lost Deals” 41:45 - Introverts vs. Extroverts in VC 43:45 - Democratizing Access to Capital 56:16 - Lightning Round

Dassler shoes was started by Adolf Dassler in 1924 in Germany, after he came home from World War I. His brother Rudolph joined him. They made athletic shoes and developed spikes to go on the bottom of the shoes. By 1936, they convinced Jesse Owens to wear their shoes on the way to his gold medals. Some of the American troops who liked the shoes during World War II helped spread the word. The brothers had a falling out soon after the war was over. Adolph founded Adidas while Rudolph created a rival shoe company called Puma. This was just in time for the advertising industry to convince people that if they bought athletic shoes that they would instantly be, er, athletic. The two companies became a part of an ad-driven identity that persists to this day. One most who buy the products advertised hardly understand themselves. A national identity involves concentric circles of understanding. The larger a nation, the more concentric circles and the harder it is to nail down exactly who has what identity. Part of this is that people spend less time thinking about who they are and more time being told who they should want to be like. Woven into the message of who a person should be is a bunch of products that a person has to buy to become the ideal. That's called advertising.  James White founded the first modern advertising agency called ‘R. F. White & Son' in Warwick Square, London in 1800. The industry evolved over the next hundred or so years as more plentiful supplies led to competition and so more of a need to advertise goods. Increasingly popular newspapers from better printing presses turned out a great place to advertise. The growth of industrialism meant there were plenty of goods and so competition between those who manufactured or trafficked those goods. The more efficient the machines of industry became, the more the advertising industry helped sell what the world might not yet know it needed. Many of those agencies settled into Madison Avenue in New York as balances of global power shifted and so by the end of World War II, Madison Avenue became a synonym for advertising. Many now-iconic brands were born in this era. Manufacturers and distributors weren't the only ones to use advertising. People put out ads to find loves in personals and by the 1950s advertising even began to find its way into politics. Iconic politicians could be created.  Dwight D Eisenhower served as the United States president from 1953 to 1961. He oversaw the liberation of Northern Africa in World War II, before he took command to plan the invasion of Normandy on D Day. He was almost universally held as a war hero in the United States. He had not held public office but the ad men of Madison Avenue were able to craft messages that put him into the White House. Messages like “I like Ike.” These were the early days of television and the early days of computers. A UNIVAC was able to predict that Eisenhower would defeat Adlai Stevenson in a landslide election in 1952. The country was not “Madly for Adlai” as his slogan went.  ENIAC had first been used in 1945. MIT Whirlwind was created in 1951, and the age of interactive computing was upon us. Not only could a computer predict who might win an election but new options in data processing allowed for more granular ways to analyze data. A young Senator named John F. Kennedy was heralded as a “new candidate for the 1960s.” Just a few years later Stephenson had lambasted Ike for using advertising, but this new generation was willing to let computers help build a platform - just as the advertisers were starting to use computers to help them figure out the best way to market a product. It turns out that words mattered. At the beginning of that 1960 election, many observed they couldn't tell much difference between the two candidates: Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. Kennedy's democrats were still largely factored between those who believed in philosophies dating back to the New Deal and segregationists. Ike presided over the early days of the post-World War II new world order. This new generation, like new generations before and since, was different. They seemed to embrace the new digital era. Someone like JFK wasn't punching cards and feeding them into a computer, writing algorithms, or out surveying people to collect that data. That was done by a company that was founded in 1959 called Simulmatics. Jill Lepore called them the What If men in her book called If/Then - a great read that goes further into the politics of the day. It's a fascinating read. The founder of the company was a Madison Avenue ad man named Ed Greenfield. He surrounded himself with a cast of characters that included people from John Hopkins University, MIT, Yale, and IBM.  Ithiel de Sola Pool had studied Nazi and Soviet propaganda during World War II. He picked up on work from Hungarian Frigyes Karinthy and with students ran Monte Carlo simulations on people's acquaintances to formulate what would later become The Small World Problem or the Six Degrees of Separation, a later inspiration for the social network of the same name and even later, for Facebook. The social sciences had become digital. Political science could then be used to get at the very issues that could separate Kennedy from Nixon. The People Machine as one called it was a computer simulation, thus the name of the company. It would analyze voting behaviors. The previous Democratic candidate Stevenson had long-winded, complex speeches. They analyzed the electorate and found that “I Like Ike” resonated with more people. It had, after all, been developed by the same ad man who came up with “Melts in your mouth, not in your hands” for M&Ms. They called the project Project Microscope. They recruited some of the best liberal minds in political science and computer science. They split the electorate into 480 groups. A big focus was how to win the African-American vote. Turns out Gallup polls didn't study that vote because Southern newspapers had blocked doing so. Civil rights, and race relations in general wasn't unlike a few other issues. There was anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, and anti-a lot. The Republicans were the party of Lincoln and had gotten a lot of votes over the last hundred years for that. But factions within the party had shifted. Loyalties were shifting. Kennedy was a Catholic but many had cautioned he should down-play that issue. The computer predicted civil rights and anti-Catholic bigotry would help him, which became Kennedy's platform. He stood for what was right but were they his positions or just what the nerds thought? He gained votes at the last minute. Turns out the other disenfranchised groups saw the bigotry against one group as akin to bigotry against their own; just like the computers thought they would. Kennedy became an anti-segregationist, as that would help win the Black vote in some large population centers. It was the most aggressive, or liberal, civil-rights plank the Democrats had ever taken up.  Civil rights are human rights. Catholic rights are as well. Kennedy offered the role of Vice President to Lyndon B Johnson, the Senate Majority Leader and was nominated to the Democratic candidate. Project Microscope from Simulmatics was hired in part to shore up Jewish and African-American votes. They said Kennedy should turn the fact that he was a Catholic into a strength. Use the fact he was Catholic to give up a few votes here and there in the South but pick up other votes. He also took the Simulmatics information as it came out of the IBM 704 mainframe to shore up his stance on other issues. That confidence helped him out-perform Nixon in televised debates. They used teletypes and even had the kids rooms converted into temporary data rooms. CBS predicted Nixon would win. Less than an hour later they predicted Kennedy would win. Kennedy won the popular vote by .1 percent of the country even after two recounts. The Black vote hat turned out big for Kennedy. News leaked about the work Simulmatics had done for Kennedy. Some knew that IBM had helped Hitler track Jews as has been written about in the book IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black. Others still had issues with advertising in campaigns and couldn't fathom computers. Despite Stalin's disgust for computers some compared the use of computers to Stalinistic propaganda. Yet it worked - even if in retrospect the findings were all things we could all take for granted. They weren't yet. The Kennedy campaign at first denied the “use of an electronic brain and yet their reports live on in the Kennedy Library. A movement against the use of the computer seemed to die after Kennedy was assassinated.  Books of fiction persisted, like The 480 from Eugene Burdick, which got its title from the number of groups Simulmatics used. The company went on to experiment with every potential market their computer simulation could be used in. The most obvious was the advertising industry. But many of those companies went on to buy their own computers. They already had what many now know is the most important aspect of any data analytics project: the data. Sometimes they had decades of buying data - and could start over on more modern computers. They worked with the Times to analyze election results in 1962, to try and catch newspapers up with television. The project was a failure and newspapers leaned into more commentary and longer-term analysis to remain a relevant supplier of news in a world of real-time television. They applied their brand of statistics to help simulate the economy of Venezuela in a project called Project Camelot, which LBJ later shot down.  Their most profitable venture became working with the defense department to do research in Vietnam. They collected data, analyzed data, punched data into cards, and fed it into computers. Pool was unabashedly pro-US and it's arguable that they saw what they wanted to see. So did the war planners in the pentagon, who followed Robert McNamara. McNamara had been one of the Quiz Kids who turned around the Ford Motor Company with a new brand of data-driven management to analyze trends in the car industry, shore up supply chains, and out-innovate the competition. He became the first president of the company who wasn't a Ford. His family had moved to the US from Ireland to flee the Great Irish Famine. Not many generations later he got an MBA from Harvard before he became a captain in the United States Army Air Forces during World War II primarily as an analyst. Henry Ford the second hired his whole group to help with the company.  As many in politics and the military learn, companies and nations are very different. They did well at first, reducing the emphasis on big nuclear first strike capabilities and developing other military capabilities. One of those was how to deal with guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgencies. That became critical in Vietnam, a war between the communist North Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese. The North was backed by North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union, the South backed by the United States, South Korea, Australia. Others got involved but those were the main parties. We can think of McNamara's use of computers to provide just in time provisioning of armed forces and move spending to where it could be most impactful, which slashed over $10 billion in military spending. As the Vietnam war intensified, statistically the number of troops killed by Americans vs American casualties made it look computationally like the was was being won. In hindsight we know it was not.  Under McNamara, ARPA hired Simulmatics to study the situation on the ground. They would merge computers, information warfare, psychological warfare, and social sciences. The Vietnamese that they interviewed didn't always tell them the truth. After all, maybe they were CIA agents. Many of the studies lacked true scholars as the war was unpopular back home. People who collected data weren't always skilled at the job. They spoke primarily with those they didn't get shot at as much while going to see. In general, the algorithms might have worked or might not have worked - but they had bad data. Yet Simulmatics sent reports that the operations were going well to McNamara. Many in the military would remember this as real capabilities at cyber warfare and information warfare were developed in the following decades. Back home, Simulmatics also became increasingly tied up in things Kennedy might have arguably fought against. There were riots, civil rights protests, and Simulatics took contracts to simulate racial riots. Some felt they could riot or go die in in the jungles of Vietnam. The era of predictive policing had begun as the hope of the early 1960s turned into the apathy of the late 1960s. Martin Luther King Jr spoke out again riot prediction, yet Simulmatics pushed on. Whether their insights were effective in many of the situations, just like in Vietnam - was dubious. They helped usher in the era of Surveillance capitalism, in a way. But the arrival of computers in ad agencies meant that if they hadn't of, someone else would have.  People didn't take kindly to being poked, prodded, and analyzed intellectually. Automation took jobs, which Kennedy had addressed in rhetoric if not in action. The war was deeply unpopular as American soldiers came home from a far off land in caskets. The link between Simulmatics and academia was known. Students protested against them and claimed they were war criminals. The psychological warfare abroad, being on the wrong side of history at home with the race riots, and the disintegrating military-industrial-university complex didn't help. There were technical issues. The technology had changed away from languages like FORTRAN. Further, the number of data points required and how they were processed required what we now call “Big Data” and “machine learning.” Those technologies showed promise early but more mathematics needed to be developed to fully weaponize the surveillance everything. More code and libraries needed to be developed to crunch the large amounts of statistics. More work needed to be done to get better data and process it. The computerization of the social sciences was just beginning and while people like Pool predicted the societal impacts we could expect, people at ARPA doubted the results and the company they created could not be saved as all these factors converged to put them into bankruptcy in 1970.  Their ideas and research lived on. Pool and others published some of their findings. Books opened the minds to the good and bad of what technology could do. The Southern politicians, or Dixiecrats, fell apart. Nixon embraced a new brand of conservatism as he lost the race to be the Governor of California to Pat Brown in 1962. There were charges of voter fraud from the 1960 election. The Mansfeld Amendment restricted military funding of basic research in 1969 and went into effect in 1970. Ike had warned of the growing links between universities as the creators of weapons of war like what Simulmatics signified and the amendment helped pull back funding for such exploits. As Lepore points out in her book, mid-century liberalism was dead. Nixon tapped into the silent majority who countered the counterculture of the 1960s. Crime rose and the conservatives became the party of law and order. He opened up relations with China, spun down the Vietnam war, negotiated with the Soviet leader Brezhnev to warm relations, and rolled back Johnson's attempts at what had been called The Great Society to get inflation back in check. Under him the incarceration rate in the United States exploded. His presidency ended with Watergate and under Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush, the personal computer became prolific and the internet, once an ARPA project began to take shape. They all used computers to find and weigh issues, thaw the Cold War, and build a new digitally-driven world order. The Clinton years saw an acceleration of the Internet and by the early 2000s companies like PayPal were on the rise. One of their founders was Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel founded Palantir in 2003 then invested in companies like Facebook with his PayPal money. Palantir received backing from In-Q-Tel “World-class, cutting-edge technologies for National Security”. In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999 as the global technological evolution began to explode. While the governments of the world had helped build the internet, it wasn't long before they realized it gave an asymmetrical advantage to newcomers. The more widely available the internet, the more far reaching attacks could go, the more subversive economic warfare could be. Governmental agencies like the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) needed more data and the long promised artificial intelligence technologies to comb through that data. Agencies then got together and launched their own venture capital fund, similar to those in the private sector - one called In-Q-Tel. Palantir has worked to develop software for the US Immigration and Customers Enforcement, or ICE, to investigate criminal activities and allegedly used data obtained from Cambridge Analytica along with Facebook data. The initial aim of the company was to take technology developed for PayPal's fraud detection and apply it to other areas like terrorism, with help from intelligence agencies. They help fight fraud for nations and have worked with the CIA, NSA, FBI, CDC, and various branches of the United States military on various software projects. Their Gotham project is the culmination of decades of predictive policing work.  There are dozens of other companies like Palantir. Just as Pool's work on Six Degrees of Separation, social networks made the amount of data that could be harvested all the greater. Companies use that data to sell products. Nations use that data for propaganda. Those who get elected to run nations use that data to find out what they need to say to be allowed to do so. The data is more accurate with every passing year. Few of the ideas are all that new, just better executed. The original sin mostly forgotten, we still have to struggle with the impact and ethical ramifications. Politics has always had a bit of a ruse in a rise to power. Now it's less about personal observation and more about the observations and analyses that can be gleaned from large troves of data. The issues brought up in books like The 480 are as poignant today as they were in the 1950s.

This is Eric Golden and my guest today is Tom McLeod. Tom is the founder and executive director of Arkive, the first ever decentralized museum. We discuss Tom's early career in music and technology, the inspiration to start a museum, and the inner workings of the Arkive community - including voting, incentives, and ownership. Please enjoy my conversation with Tom.   For the full show notes, transcript, and links to the best content to learn more, check out the episode page here.   -----   This episode is brought to you by Coinbase Prime. Coinbase Prime combines advanced trading, battle-tested custody, financing, and prime services in a single solution. Clients have used our comprehensive investing platform to execute some of the largest trades in the industry because they are the only publicly-traded company with experience trading and custodying crypto assets at scale. Get started with Coinbase Prime today at coinbase.com/prime.   -----   Web3 Breakdowns is a property of Colossus, LLC. For more episodes of Web3 Breakdowns, visit joincolossus.com/episodes.   Stay up to date on all our podcasts by signing up to Colossus Weekly, our quick dive every Sunday highlighting the top business and investing concepts from our podcasts and the best of what we read that week. Sign up here.   Follow us on Twitter: @Web3Breakdowns | @ericgoldenx | @patrick_oshag    Show Notes [00:02:04] - [First question] - Having a vision to work with computers in the second grade [00:05:14] - Going from a child computer coder and starting an indie record label [00:07:00] - Working in a big music studio in the midst of the streaming and digital revolution  [00:09:22] - The road leading from Omni to Arkive  [00:13:02] - A high level sketch of Akrive and what their mission is   [00:14:17] - Finding pieces to fill this new approach to curating a museum  [00:16:15] - Who can become a member and vote for what makes it into the museum [00:18:55] - Community owned capital and community owned assets  [00:21:07] - How members can earn their Arkive points  [00:22:30] - Mechanics of voting and the curation community decisions [00:26:14] - Sourcing items of the caliber able to excite their participants   [00:27:49] - How they approach pricing and valuation for art and collectibles [00:29:48] - What it was like to hold the ENIAC patent for the first time [00:32:24] - Making sure items purchased can be seen by the public  [00:34:58] - Whether or not they plan to step outside of the viewable museum model  [00:37:09] - Plans to make fractional ownership and private investing possible  [00:39:09] - Advertising that they're hiring on-chain pricing oracles [00:41:45] - The likelihood of liquidity in light of exclusivity  [00:42:45] - Building out their own infrastructure and tools  [00:45:17] - What he's most excited to see built over the next six months and six years

Hitler's Munich - Dr. Michael Brenner The Not Old Better Show, Smithsonian Associates Interview Series Welcome to The Not Old Better Show on radio and podcast. I'm Paul Vogelzang, and we've got another great show as part of our Smithsonian Associates Art Of Living author interview series.  Thank you so much for listening.  We've got a great guest today, who I'll introduce in just a moment…But, quickly, if you missed any episodes, last week was our 658th episode, and we spoke to author ‘The PIrate's Wife: The Remarkable True Story of Sarah Kidd,' available HERE on Apple Books for pre-order now. Two weeks ago, I spoke with  Kathy Kleiman about her new book, Proving Ground…a great interview about the first women programmers of the ENIAC computer  Wonderful stuff…If you missed those shows, you can go back and check them out along with my entire backlog of shows, all free for you there on our website, NotOldBetter.com…and if you leave a review, we will read it at the end of each show…leave reviews on Apple Podcasts for us. Today's interview is really amazing and so eye-opening…We are talking with Smithsonian Associate Dr. Michael Brenner.  Dr. Michael Brenner will be appearing at Smithsonian Associates coming up, so please check out our show notes for more details; but we have a wonderful interview with Dr. Michael Brenner today in anticipation of Michael Brenner's Smithsonian Associates presentation titled, Insurrection in a Bavarian Beer Hall.Hitler's Failed Putsch and Its Consequences In the aftermath of Germany's defeat in World War I and the failed November Revolution of 1918-19, the conservative government of Bavaria identified Jews with left-wing radicalism. Munich became a hotbed of right-wing extremism, with synagogues under attack and Jews physically assaulted in the streets. It was here that Adolf Hitler established the Nazi movement and developed his antisemitic ideas. Michael Brenner provides a gripping account of how Bavaria's capital city became the testing ground for Nazism and the Final Solution. Dr. Michael Brenner will describe in detail an electrifying narrative that takes readers from Hitler's return to Munich following the armistice to his calamitous Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Dr. Brenner demonstrates why the city's transformation is crucial for understanding the Nazi era and the tragedy of the Holocaust. Dr. Brenner tells us how Hitler and his followers terrorized Munich's Jews and were aided by politicians, judges, police, and ordinary residents. Dr. Brenner shows how the city's Jews responded to the antisemitic backlash in many different ways--by declaring their loyalty to the state, by avoiding public life, or by abandoning the city altogether for a different perspective. That, of course, is our guest today, Dr. Michael Brenner reading from his new book, In Hitler's Munich.  Please join me in welcoming to the Smithsonian Associates Author Interview series Smithsonian Associate Dr. Michael Brenner. Thanks to Dr. Michael Brenner for joining me today and for his reading from his new book, In Hitler's Munich  Dr. Brenner's excellent preparation…really makes my job easy.  Making my job easy, and thanks, as well, to our wonderful Smithsonian team for all they do to support the show.  Thanks to you, our equally wonderful audience…please be safe, and I emphasize this because we need to all be safe by eliminating assault rifles.  Assault rifles should only be in military hands…they are killing our children and grandchildren in the very place they learn: School.  Please, let's do better by eliminating assault rifles…let's talk about better…The Not Old Better Show.  Thanks, everybody, and I'll see you next week.  Music today is from Smithsonian Folkways, Germany: Die Bluemelein sie schlafen / Ober de stelen straten / Schlaf in suesser Ruh (medley) For more details, please click HERE at Smithsonian Associates: https://smithsonianassociates.org/ticketing/tickets/insurrection-in-beer-hall

TESLA: Wizard At War - Dr. Marc Seifer The Not Old Better Show Smithsonian Associates Author Interview Series Welcome to The Not Old Better Show on radio and podcast. I'm Paul Vogelzang, and we've got another great show as part of our Smithsonian Associates Art Of Living author interview series.  Thank you so much for listening.  We've got a great guest today, who I'll introduce in just a moment…But, quickly, if you missed any episodes, last week was our 656th episode, and we spoke to author Kathy Kleiman about her new book, Proving Ground…a great interview about the first women programmers of the ENIAC computer.  Two weeks ago, I spoke with Claudia Clark about her book, ‘Dear Barack' and the important but unlikely, especially in this divisive political day and age, of the political partnership between Pres. Barack Obama and German PM Angela Merkel.  Wonderful stuff…If you missed those shows, you can go back and check them out along with my entire backlog of shows, all free for you there on our website, NotOldBetter.com…and if you leave a review, we will read it at the end of each show…leave reviews on Apple Podcasts for us. Today's interview is really fun and so eye-opening…We are talking with Smithsonian Associate Marc Seifer.  Marc Seifer will be appearing at Smithsonian Associates coming up, so please check out our show notes for more details, but we have a wonderful interview with Marc Seifer today in anticipation of Marc's Smithsonian Associates presentation. In the 21st century, the life and accomplishments of the inventor, engineer, and futurist Nikola Tesla have risen from almost total obscurity to topics of fresh interest. Our guest today, author Marc J. Seifer, one of the world's leading Tesla experts, surveys for us his most significant discoveries that continue to influence today's military technology and diplomatic strategies.  Let's listen as author Marc Seifer reads from his new book, TESLA: Wizard at War Marc Seifer offers us new insights into the brilliant scientist's particle-beam weapon (a.k.a. the "Death Ray") and explores his military negotiations with pivotal historical figures, including his links to Joseph Stalin; General Andrew McNaughton, Churchill's right-hand man; Vannevar Bush, head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II; and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Please join me in welcoming to The Not Old Better Show Smithsonian Associates author interview series, Smithsonian Associate Dr. Marc Seifer. Thanks to Marc Seifer for joining me today and for his reading from his new book, TESLA: Wizard At War; Marc's excellent preparation…really makes my job easy.  Making my job easy, and thanks, as well, to our wonderful Smithsonian team for all they do to support the show.  Thanks to you, our equally wonderful audience…please be safe, and I emphasize this because we need to all be safe by eliminating assault rifles.  Assault rifles should only be in military hands…they are killing our children and grandchildren in the very place they learn: School.  Please, let's do better by eliminating assault rifles…let's talk about better…The Not Old Better Show.  Thanks, everybody, and I'll see you next week.

The ENIAC Programmers: The Women Behind the First Modern Computer-Kathy Kleiman The Not Old Better Show Smithsonian Associates Author Interview Series Welcome to The Not Old Better Show on radio and podcast. I'm Paul Vogelzang, and we've got another great show as part of our Smithsonian Associates Art Of Living author interview series.  Thank you so much for listening.  We've got a great guest today, who I'll introduce in just a moment…But, quickly, if you missed any episodes, last week was our 656th episode, and we spoke to author Peter Alagona about his new book, Accidental Ecosystem…a great interview about the rise in animals living in urban America.  Two weeks ago, I spoke with Dr. Chantel Prat about how we're wired and the human brain's adventure for each of us.  If you missed those shows, you can go back and check them out along with my entire backlog of shows, all free for you there on our website, NotOldBetter.com…and if you leave a review, we will read it at the end of each show…leave reviews on Apple Podcasts for us. As I said, our guest today is Kathy Kleiman, author, author, educator, and attorney who's written the new book, Proving Ground: The Untold Story of the Six Women Who Programmed the World's First Modern Computer and will be appearing at Smithsonian Associates coming up…check our show notes for details and more information. After the end of World War II, top-secret research continued across the United States as engineers and programmers rushed to complete their confidential assignments. Among them were six pioneering women tasked with figuring out how to program the new Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (ENIAC). The world's first general-purpose, programmable, all-electronic computer, ENIAC, was built to calculate a single ballistic trajectory in 20 seconds rather than 40 hours by a human hand—but there were no instruction codes or programming languages in existence to guide the women. They succeeded, but their story was never told to the reporters and scientists fascinated by the huge computer after it became public—and it was lost. That, of course, is our guest today, author Kathy Kleiman, reading from her new book, Proving Ground: The Untold Story of the Six Women Who Programmed the World's First Modern Computer Join Kathy Kleiman and me as she talks all about these women programmers and the campaign to restore these women to their rightful place as technological revolutionaries and shares why the ENIAC programmers' groundbreaking work still deserves to be celebrated. a much-needed podcast" "So glad to have found this podcast. With so many podcasts for 20-somethings, it's nice to find one for people who are 50+. If you're looking to create a better life for yourself, you will really love this. Great host and had great info. Paul is a very personable host that is a pleasure to listen to." Thanks, Mr. Clever, and please leave your feedback which I'll read here on the show.  Thanks, as well, to our wonderful Smithsonian team for all they do to support the show.  Thanks to you, our equally wonderful audience…please be safe, and I emphasize this because we need to all be safe by eliminating assault rifles.  Assault rifles should only be in military hands…they are killing our children and grandchildren in the very place they learn: School.  Please, let's do better by eliminating assault rifles…let's talk about better…The Not Old Better Show.  Thanks, everybody, and I'll see you next week. For more information and ticket details, please click HERE on the Smithsonian Associates site. https://smithsonianassociates.org/ticketing/tickets/eniac-programmers?utm_source=RAad&utm_content=FEauto&utm_campaign=featevent

During World War II, the United States Army contracted with a group of engineers at the University of Pennsylvania Moore School of Electrical Engineering to build the ENIAC, the world's first programmable general-purpose electronic digital computer in order to more quickly calculate numbers for ballistics tables. Once the top-secret device was built, someone needed to figure out how to program the more than 17,000 vacuum tubes, 70,000 resistors, 10,000 capacitors, 6,000 switches, and 1,500 mechanical relays so that the calculations could be run. Six women mathematicians who had been manually calculating the figures, were chosen to develop the programming, which they worked out before they were even allowed to see the machine. Joining me to help us learn more about the ENIAC six is Kathy Kleiman, a leader in Internet law and policy, founder of the ENIAC Programmers Project, and author of the 2022 book, Proving Ground: The Untold Story of the Six Women Who Programmed the World's First Modern Computer. Our theme song is Frogs Legs Rag, composed by James Scott and performed by Kevin MacLeod, licensed under Creative Commons. The episode image is “Photograph of World's First Computer, the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Calculator,” National Archives at College Park, ARC Identifier 594262. Sources: Proving Ground: The Untold Story of the Six Women Who Programmed the World's First Modern Computer by Kathy Kleiman The ENIAC Programmers Project “Jean Bartik, Software Pioneer, Dies at 86,” by Steve Lohr, The New York Times, April 7, 2011. “Frances E. Holberton, 84, Early Computer Programmer,” by Steve Lohr, The New York Times, December 17, 2001. The Computers: The Remarkable Story of the ENIAC Programmers, 2016, Vimeo On-Demand. “ENIAC Accumulator #2,” Smithsonian National Museum of American History. “The world's first general purpose computer turns 75,” by Erica K. Brockmeier, Penn Today, February 11, 2021. “The Brief History of the ENIAC Computer,” by Steven Levy, Smithsonian Magazine, November 2013. “ENIAC: First computer makes history,” by Michael Kanellos, ZDNet, February 13, 2006. “ENIAC Programmers,” Women in Technology Hall of Fame Awards. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kathy Kleiman on her new book about the ENIAC programmers, "Proving Ground: The Untold Story of the Six Women Who Programmed the World's First Modern Computer"  

Kathy Kleiman, an expert on internet governance at American University College of Law and the author of "Proving Ground," talks about the six American women who programmed the ENIAC, the world's first general-purpose electronic computer. The ENIAC (Electric Numerical Integrator and Computer), which weighed over 30 tons and took up 1,800 square feet, was a top-secret project designed by the U.S. Army during World War II to calculate artillery trajectories. The six women who programmed the ENIAC to carry out these calculations did so without a manual, relying solely on their study of the blueprints and wiring diagrams of the computer.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thomas McLeod is the Founder and Executive Director of Arkive. Arkive is redefining culture by building the first-ever decentralized physical museum. Its mission is to curate, own, and create culture. Its community helps shape the future, by curating the past -- members vote on what items to acquire, how to display them, and much more. The first item Arkive acquired was the patent to ENIAC -- the first computer. Tom is a 5x founder, having also previously created over a dozen mobile apps and starting storage company Omni. SPONSOR -- Tegus This episode is sponsored by Tegus, the leading modern research platform for institutional investors. Tegus is the most comprehensive database of expert call interviews with former executives, customers, competitors, and industry experts. It's a a tech-first platform that makes it easy to surface and search SEC filings and earning transcripts. Plus you can get expert calls at a fraction of the typical cost. It has unmatched info on public and private company. Check it out today: https://www.tegus.com/trial/notboring --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/notboring/message

We saw the story over and over again: computer programmer Klára Dán von Neumann was a pioneer in weather forecasting. But when we talked to Thomas Haigh, a historian who studies Klári's work, he said he's found absolutely no evidence of this. How did this weather myth start? We set out to answer that question, and in the process, we asked this: Why is it so tempting to credit the wrong person, even when that false credit is given with the best of intentions? Note: we'd like to acknowledge the operators of the ENIAC who ran the 1950 weather simulation, Homé McAllister and Clyde Hauff.