James Patterson released a work of interactive fiction on Facebook Messenger

One of the world’s best-selling authors is experimenting with a new form of digital-first storytelling.

James Patterson has partnered with Facebook to release his latest novel,‘The Chef’, on its messaging app. The thriller has been available to read on Facebook Messenger since Tuesday and will make its print debut in February. Interested readers just have to send a message to “The Chef by James Patterson” on Messenger to get started with the immersive reading experience.

Facebook Messenger counts 1.3 billion monthly users. Patterson, known for the Alex Cross series, ‘The President is Missing,’ ‘Witch & Wizard,’ and others, has sold some 375 million books worldwide.

The story follows Caleb Rooney, a New Orleans police detective by day and food truck chef by night that’s been accused of murder. The short novel is formatted like a series of text messages, with video, audio, photos and documents interspersed. Rooney and the book’s other leading characters have Instagram accounts for fans to interact with.

The novel’s social media play taps into the new generation of content consumers — those accustomed to layered, multi-media experiences.

Patterson told Cheddar he considers the project a “bookie,” or a book meets a movie. The author is no stranger to innovative experiments, he’s previously released a line of super-short, $4 books and was an early pioneer of e-books.

“It’s so important to me that books … keep up — that they enter the modern age,” Patterson said.


Source: Tech Crunch

What does SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son plan to say or do about its ties to Saudi Arabia? We’re about to find out

Throughout October, it seemed that among others in tech, SoftBank might be forced to rethink its cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, or MBS, who has charmed many captains of industry since rising to power, but whose dark side came into abrupt view over the murder and gruesome disposal of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. (MBS has steered Saudi Arabia into plenty of other terribleness, but the brutal end of Khashoggi, a resident of Virginia, a Washington Post columnist, and a critic of MBS, managed to capture the West’s attention in a way that tens of thousands of dead Yemeni children have not.)

Certainly, parting ways with MBS wouldn’t be easy for SoftBank, whose CEO, Masayoshi Son, has said that his ambitious Vision Fund, which finally closed this past May with $100 billion in commitments, is anchored by MBS. In fact, Son has said that MBS committed $45 billion to the effort in 45 minutes time, and MBS more recently revealed his intention to give SoftBank a separate $45 billion for a second Vision Fund.

That’s a lot of money to turn down. Still, for a minute, it seemed that SoftBank might legitimately be having second thoughts about whether it’s good to be in business with MBS. According to the Financial Times, SoftBank’s COO Marcelo Claure said publicly two weeks ago that there was “no certainty” that SoftBank will launch another Vision Fund.

Another week passed however. Some of the public’s outrage was directed elsewhere. And by the end of this past week, it seemed to be all systems go for SoftBank, which took its finger off the pause button to strike two big deals:  plugging $375 million into the robotic food-prep company Zume (with reported plans to invest another $375 million into the company at a later date), and announcing on Friday that it has sunk $1.1 billion into View, a maker of glass used in internet-connected windowpanes.

Apparently, both companies’ management teams see more to gain from partnering with SoftBank than trying to find other funding sources.

The question is whether SoftBank itself will make the same decision as it maps out its own future. And we’re about to find out, seemingly. As the Financial Times notes, Son is reporting SoftBank’s second-quarter results tomorrow, and there’s no question he will be posed a long list of questions about SoftBank’s ties to the Public Investment Fund, the sovereign-wealth fund that MBS controls.

Some answers would be helpful, to say the least. To date, Son has said nothing about the Khashoggi case. And though Son skipped an appearance at investment conference organized the week before last by MBS in Riyadh, he met with the prince privately before the event. Our sources say this was to privately express his concern over Khashoggi, but we also get the impression that there was no talk about breaking up the band.

We’ll should find out imminently whether that’s right or wrong. Either way, SoftBank’s association with MBS isn’t going to be forgotten anytime soon. Indeed, as the FT notes, SoftBank’s shares have fallen fully 26 percent since Khashoggi disappeared in early October.


Source: Tech Crunch

Why we lie to ourselves, every day

Human action requires motivation, but what exactly are those motivations? Donating money to a charity might be motivated by altruism, and yet, only 1% of donations are anonymous. Donors don’t just want to be altruistic, they also want credit for that altruism plus badges to signal to others about their altruistic ways.

Worse, we aren’t even aware of our true motivations — in fact, we often strategically deceive ourselves to make our behavior appear more pure than it really is. It’s a pattern that manifests itself across all kinds of arenas, including consumption, politics, education, medicine, religion and more.

In their book Elephant in the Brain, Kevin Simler, formerly a long-time engineer at Palantir, and Robin Hanson, an associate professor of economics at George Mason University, take the most dismal parts of the dismal science of economics and weave them together into a story of humans acting badly (but believing they are great!) As the authors write in their intro, “The line between cynicism and misanthropy — between thinking ill of human motives and thinking ill of humans — is often blurry.” No kidding.

Elephant in the Brain by Kevin Simler and Robin Hanson. Oxford University Press, 2018

The eponymous elephant in the brain is essentially our self-deception and hidden motivations regarding the actions we take in everyday life. Like the proverbial elephant in the room, this elephant in the brain is visible to those who search for it, but we often avoid looking at it lest we get discouraged at our selfish behavior.

Humans care deeply about being perceived as prosocial, but we are also locked into constant competition, over status attainment, careers, and spouses. We want to signal our community spirit, but we also want to selfishly benefit from our work. We solve for this dichotomy by creating rationalizations and excuses to do both simultaneously. We give to charity for the status as well as the altruism, much as we get a college degree to learn, but also to earn a degree which signals to employers that we will be hard workers.

The key is that we self-deceive: we don’t realize we are taking advantage of the duality of our actions. We truly believe we are being altruistic, just as much as we truly believe we are in college to learn and explore the arts and humanities. That self-deception is critical, since it lowers the cost of demonstrating our prosocial bona fides: we would be heavily cognitively taxed if we had to constantly pretend as if we cared about the environment when what we really care about is being perceived as an ethical consumer.

Elephant in the Brain is a bold yet synthetic thesis. Simler and Hanson build upon a number of research advances, such as Jonathan Haidt’s work on the righteous mind and Robert Trivers work on evolutionary psychology to undergird their thesis in the first few chapters, and then they apply that thesis to a series of other fields (ten, in fact) in relatively brief and facile chapters to describe how the elephant in the brain affects us in every sphere of human activity.

Refreshingly, far from being polemicists, the authors are quite curious and investigatory about this pattern of human behavior, and they realize they are pushing at least some of their readers into uncomfortable territory. They even begin the book by stating that “we expect the typical reader to accept roughly two-thirds of our claims about human motives and institutions.”

Yet, the book is essentially making one claim, just applied in a myriad of ways. It’s unclear to me who the reader would be who accepts only parts of the book’s premise. Either you have come around to the cynical view of humans (pre or post book), or you haven’t — there doesn’t seem to me to be a middle point between those two perspectives.

Worse, even after reading the book, I am left completely unaware of what exactly to do with the thesis now that I have read it. There is something of a lukewarm conclusion in which the authors push for us to have greater situational awareness, and a short albeit excellent section on designing better institutions to account for hidden motivations. The book’s observations ultimately don’t lead to any greater project, no path toward a more enlightened society. That’s fine, but disappointing.

Indeed, for a book that arguably strives to be optimistic, I fear its results will be nothing more than cynical fodder for Silicon Valley product designers. Don’t design products for what humans say they want, but design them to punch the buttons of their hidden motivations. Viewed in this light, Elephant in the Brain is perhaps a more academic version of the Facebook product manual.

The dismal science is dismal precisely because of this cynicism: because as a project, as a set of values, it leads pretty much nowhere. Everyone is secretly selfish and obsessed with status, and they don’t even know it. As the authors conclude in their final line, “We may be competitive social animals, self-interested and self-deceived, but we cooperated our way to the god-damned moon.” Yes we did, and it is precisely that surprise from such a dreary species that we should take solace in. There is indeed an elephant in our brain, but its influence can wax and wane — and ultimately humans hold their agency in their own hands.


Source: Tech Crunch

Boring Tunnel is on track for an “opening party” next month

Last night, super entrepreneur and Twitter addict Elon Musk posted some mesmerizing footage of the tunnel that his nearly two-year-old infrastructure company, Boring Company, is creating in Los Angeles right now, the first of four planned projects that Musk promises will reduce congestion in car-choked city cities.

Musk also tweeted — not for the first time — that the company will unveil to the public the stretch of rapid-transit tunnel in the southern L.A. suburb of Hawthorne on December 10th, roughly five weeks from now. The idea, per Musk, is to host an opening event that night, followed by free rides for the public next day — though only the brave need apply. Musk has said previously that the system will be capable of whisking pedestrians, cyclists and private vehicles at speeds of up to 155 mph.

Eventually, if all goes as planned, they will travel via an electric-powered platform called a skate that will comprise either a vehicle itself carrying up to 16 passengers or that will support a car that has been driven onto it. Elevators will move between these skates and the street level.

Musk did not say how long a stretch has been built yet, only calling it “disturbingly long.”


Source: Tech Crunch

What if Google unionized?

Last week more than 20,000 Google employees walked out of their workplace to protest, and demand major changes in, how the company handles harassment and discrimination. Mass employee organization, demands made of management — doesn’t that all vaguely remind you of some kind of old-fashioned twentieth-century concept? What was it called again? The name’s on the tip of my tongue, I swear…

A participant said, “Just the threat of us walking out was enough for the company to remove DeVaul from the payroll,” referring to Richard DeVaul, the Google executive who resigned this week amid a swirling storm of accusations of sexual harassment and worse. Meanwhile, an organizer of the walkout said, plaintively, “I hope I still have a career in Silicon Valley after this” … while other organizers declined to go on the record.

If only there were some formal, structured way in which tech employees could bring grievances to their management, and negotiate with them as a group, via, say, elected representatives, for whom protection from retaliation could be established. Surely the disruptors and out-of-the-box thinkers of Silicon Valley could come up with some revolutionary new system for that. Imagine — and I know this sounds like science fiction but bear with me — one day, such a structure might even achieve some kind of special legal recognition and protections.

But what would they call it? I don’t know. Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, they could call it a “union” or something crazy like that. After the set operation, get it? They like math entendres down at Google, after all…

I am not necessarily saying such a concept is all benefit and no cost. I’m not even saying I think it would necessarily be a net good idea. But it is striking to me how nobody seems to have even publicly considered the possibility, under the circumstances.

I get that the Valley idea of a union is basically that of a terrible hidebound boa constrictor which chokes off all hope of speed and/or innovation. That might well be true, if one were to simply try to apply twentieth-century union notions, ones which tried to control hours worked and physical conditions, because those were the primary concerns of the manufacturing and/or otherwise physical laborers of that era. But it surprises me greatly that nobody seems to even be talking about a “Union 2.0” concept, one built for 21st-century software engineers rather than 20th-century auto workers, one which didn’t necessarily sacrifice speed, flexibility, or openness to experimentation.

Not least because such could have important repercussions beyond the companies in question. Big tech companies have become among the most powerful entities in the world, at least indirectly. An argument about government regulation of tech is often that it is both heavy-handed and so slow that by the time it finally happens it applies to the tech of several years ago and is already essentially obsolete. This is often a fair criticism, and often applies to legal restitution too.

So what are the checks and balances for Big Tech? What forces and people can keep them honest? The obvious answer is: their employees. Google and Facebook and company fear unrest among their tens of thousands of employees far more than they do the anger of a few hundred million users around the world. It’s by no means a perfect lever of influence, but it’s better than nothing. Whether you want to call it a union or not, I can’t help but think that a more formal structure for grievances, collective negotiation, and protection from reprisal, among employees of major tech companies, might just be a pretty good idea for everyone.


Source: Tech Crunch

A blockchain firm bought asteroid mining company Planetary Resources

Here’s a match made in…I don’t know, somewhere on the blockchain, I guess. Pioneering space startup Planetary Resources was acquired by, of all things, a blockchain firm this week. ConsenSys, a Brooklyn based firm that specializes in all things Ethereum issued an announcement noting that it has snagged the asteroid mining  company.

It’s not entirely clear how the two companies will work together, though ConsenSys founder Joe Lubin (who also helped author Ethereum) did manage to mention “decentralizing space endeavors,” which is certainly on-brand for the head of a blockchain company.

“I admire Planetary Resources for its world class talent, its record of innovation, and for inspiring people across our planet in support of its bold vision for the future,” Lubin said in a statement tied to the news. “Bringing deep space capabilities into the ConsenSys ecosystem reflects our belief in the potential for Ethereum to help humanity craft new societal rule systems through automated trust and guaranteed execution. And it reflects our belief in democratizing and decentralizing space endeavors to unite our species and unlock untapped human potential.”

Lubin also promised to offer up more information in the coming months. Meantime, Planetary Resources CEO Chris Lewicki (formerly of NASA JPL) and General Counsel Brian Israel will both be joining ConsenSys. Here’s what Lewicki had to say about the matter, “I am proud of our team’s extraordinary accomplishments, grateful to our visionary supporters, and delighted to join ConsenSys in building atop our work to expand humanity’s economic sphere of influence into the Solar System.”

Founded in 2010 as Arkyd Astronautics, Planetary Resources was considered a bright light in the world of privatized space companies, with X Prize founder Peter Diamandis on-board as director. Earlier this year, however, the company noted that it was rethinking its approach and making cutbacks after failing to secure its most recent funding round.


Source: Tech Crunch

Facebook reorganizes Oculus for AR/VR’s long-haul

Facebook is again looking to whip Oculus into shape for its 10-year journey towards making virtual reality mainstream. According to two sources, Facebook reorganized its AR and VR team this week from a divisional structure focused around products to a functional structure focused around technology areas of expertise. While no one was laid off, the change could eliminate redundancies by uniting specialists so they can iterate towards long-term progress rather than being separated into groups dedicated to particular gadgets.

Facebook confirmed the reorg to TechCrunch, with a spokesperson providing this statement: “We made some changes to the AR/VR organization earlier this week. These were internal changes and won’t impact consumers or our partners in the developer community.” Oculus CTO John Carmack and Oculus co-founder/newly-promoted Head of PC VR Nate Mitchell will remain in their leadership positions within VP of AR/VR Andrew ‘Boz’ Bosworth’s hardware wing of the company.

The shift obviously communicates that Facebook believes Oculus could be running more effectively. Organizing the company around areas of expertise rather than broader divisions is probably more appropriate for a moonshot effort that can’t afford redundancies, on the other hand, keeping expertise siloed could isolate new approaches and advancements from reaching other teams. As the company builds out its first full lineup of headsets, there seems to be significant overlap in the tech problems and products bring tackled by those working on mobile and PC products.

TechCrunch reported earlier this week that the company is planning to release a new Rift headset as early as 2019, possibly called the Rift S, which will featured upgraded displays and an inside-out tracking system. The company’s “Rift 2” project, codenamed Caspar, was left behind in the reorganization, a source tells us. We can’t confirm whether any other products or concepts have been shelved.

While an immersive virtual world that users can hang out and communicate in certainly seems to fit Facebook’s broader mission, the company has spent the better part of the past few years deciding how a costly, ambitious venture like Oculus fits into its corporate structure.

First, things went smoothly. The company and its empowered co-founders were building out a developer network and prepping for the launch of their Rift headset after creating a successful partnership with Samsung for the Gear VR. Then, the company’s good fortune turned as the Rift headset was racked by expensive delays and Oculus failed to ship the company’s Touch motion controllers at launch losing some initial ground to HTC. 

By the end of 2016, it was announced that co-founder Brendan Iribe was out as CEO and that the company would be reorganizing around divisions focused on things like PC VR, mobile and content with Xiaomi exec Hugo Barra coming aboard as VP of VR to lead the new effort working directly beneath CEO Mark Zuckerberg. An additional layer of oversight has been built in since then, with Bosworth was put in charge of the company’s consumer hardware ambitions with Oculus as a central pillar. His title is now VP of AR/VR.

The absorption of Oculus deeper into Facebook’s corporate structure was a trend that soon replicated itself as the company looked to rein in the independent teams under a more cohesive vision. The culmination of this was a major executive reshuffle earlier this year that changed the landscape for how divisions within the company were managed.

Now, they’re changing things up even more.

Oculus Go

The new structure sounds like it could coordinate efforts around more general lines like hardware and software allowing insights to flow more intuitively across Facebook’s planned devices.

Given the slow adoption of VR and engineering challenges of AR headsets, which at TechCrunch’s LA conference last month Facebook’s head of AR Ficus Kirkpatrick confirmed it was building, this structure could help Oculus iterate its way to long-term success rather than just getting the next product out the door.

If Facebook is going to beat companies solely focused on AR like Magic Leap, and potential incumbent invaders like Apple if it so chooses, it needs to maximize efficiency. And if it’s going to get both developers and users excited about these next-generation computing platforms, it will have to produce products that make cutting-edge technologies feel unified and accessible. That’s a lot easier when everyone’s not stepping on each other’s virtual shoes.


Source: Tech Crunch

In a court filing, Edward Snowden says a report critical to an NSA lawsuit is authentic

An unexpected declaration by whistleblower Edward Snowden filed in court this week adds a new twist in a long-running lawsuit against the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs.

The case, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation a decade ago, seeks to challenge the government’s alleged illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of Americans, who are largely covered under the Fourth Amendment’s protections against warrantless searches and seizures.

It’s a big step forward for the case, which had stalled largely because the government refused to confirm that a leaked document was authentic or accurate.

News of the surveillance broke in 2006 when an AT&T technician Mark Klein revealed that the NSA was tapping into AT&T’s network backbone. He alleged that a secret, locked room — dubbed Room 641A — in an AT&T facility in San Francisco where he worked was one of many around the U.S. used by the government to monitor communications — domestic and overseas. President George W. Bush authorized the NSA to secretly wiretap Americans’ communications shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

Much of the EFF’s complaint relied on Klein’s testimony until 2013, when Snowden, a former NSA contractor, came forward with new revelations that described and detailed the vast scope of the U.S. government’s surveillance capabilities, which included participation from other phone giants — including Verizon (TechCrunch’s parent company).

Snowden’s signed declaration, filed on October 31, confirms that one of the documents he leaked, which the EFF relied heavily on for its case, is an authentic draft document written by the then-NSA inspector general in 2009, which exposed concerns about the legality of the Bush’s warrantless surveillance program — Stellar Wind — particularly the collection of bulk email records on Americans.

The draft top-secret document was never published, and the NSA had refused to confirm or deny the authenticity of the 2009 inspector general report, ST-09-0002 — despite that it’s been public for many years.

Snowden, as one of the few former NSA staffers who can speak more freely than former government employees about the agency’s surveillance, confirmed that the document is “authentic.”

“I read its contents carefully during my employment,” he said in his declaration. “I have a specific and strong recollection of this document because it indicated to me that the government had been conducting illegal surveillance.”

Snowden left his home in Hawaii for Hong Kong in 2013 when he gave tens of thousand of documents to reporters. His passport was cancelled as he travelled to Moscow to take another onward flight. He later claimed political asylum in Russia, where he currently lives with his partner.

U.S. prosecutors charged Snowden with espionage.

EFF executive director Cindy Cohn said that the NSA’s refusal to authenticate the leaked documents “is just another step in its practice of falling back on weak technicalities to prevent the public courts from ruling on whether our Constitution allows this kind of mass surveillance of hundreds of millions of nonsuspect people.”

The EFF said in another filing that the draft report “further confirms” the participation of phone companies in the government’s surveillance programs.

The case continues — though, a court hearing has not been set.


Source: Tech Crunch

Amazon reportedly in ‘advanced talks’ to open HQ2 in Virginia

These sorts of major decision no doubt take some time. And, of course, Amazon is clearly milking the decision making process for all it’s worth as cities across the States roll out the red carpet. According to a new report from The Washington Post, however, the big news surrounding where the company opens its second headquarters may come sooner than later.

The Bezos-owned paper is reporting that the retail giant is in “advanced talks” with Crystal City, a neighborhood in North Virginia that lies just south of the Washington D.C. Those conversations are reportedly further along and “more detailed” than any of the other Amazon has had with fellow top contenders. Nearby metro stops and proximity to a major airport are all requirements that are fulfilled by Crystal City.

Among the topics broached during the talks are questions around building capacity and how quickly the company can start moving in. In fact, a local top real estate developer has apparently unlisted some of its buildings in the past month, in anticipation of an announcement. Buildings for the initial move of hundreds of employees could be occupied by Amazon employees within nine months.

No specifics on when exactly the announcement would arrive, though the paper notes that it’s being held until after the midterm elections, meaning it could potentially occur as soon as Wednesday.


Source: Tech Crunch

The iPhone is reportedly getting 5G in 2020

The first 5G phones are set to start arriving next year. Motorola plans to bring next-gen connectivity via a Mod for the Z3, and companies like LG and OnePlus have promised to deliver the tech baked into handsets at some point in 2019. iPhone users, on the other hand, may have to wait a bit longer.

The technology is, of course, an inevitability for Apple (along with everyone else, really), so it’s just a question of when. A new report from Fast Company (via the Verge) puts the timing around a year and half out.

The “source with knowledge of Apple’s plans” put the 5G iPhone’s arrival at some point in 2020, with Intel supplying the tech this time out. Apparently Apple and Intel are going through a bit of a rough patch of late, courtesy of heat/battery issues with the 8060 5G modem. Of course, things aren’t rough enough for the company to hit up Qualcomm again.

Given the on-going battle between the two companies, that’s probably a bridge too far. Instead, Apple’s holding out for Intel’s 8161 chip. 5G presents a solid opportunity for Intel to regain some of the substantial ground it ceded to Qualcomm in the mobile market the last time out.


Source: Tech Crunch