Random Things

With its 4.5-billion-year head start on mankind, the natural world has developed some clever mechanisms for solving big problems, and that natural cleverness isn’t just informing new ways to generate energy. It’s slowly but surely informing everything from the the way emergency rooms are designed to how data networks communicate. It asks that electricity grids act like bees and businesses manage resources like coral reefs manage calories. Seriously.

“Biomimicry is a beautiful way of framing the design process to be cognizant of how nature does things,” says Dr. John Warner of the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry. “I think that over the centuries humans have become a little egotistical in trying to bend materials and things to our will.”

Warner and his colleagues are on the science side of biomimicry’s collaboration between biology and design. As a green chemist, he and his lab develop new environmentally benign materials often borrowing from natural processes along the way. In Warner’s world, gone are the heat, high pressures, and toxic additives native to much man-made chemistry, replaced with processes that hew more closely to the way nature creates materials.

On the other side of that equation are the engineers looking for new and better materials with which to design. And increasingly there’s a stronger dialogue between the two, driven partially by an increased environmental consciousness but moreso by a pressing imperative to solve big, overarching problems at the macro scale.

Take Nocera’s leaf for instance: in light of an always-looming global energy (and environmental) crisis, a means to generate electricity from plentiful (and renewable) water and sunlight could solve a number of huge problems, both natural and man made. The answer is right there in the leaf, and has been for millennia--unlock that natural mechanism in a feasible, economically viable manner and you’ve got a beautiful solution to problems ranging from the environmental to the humanitarian to the geopolitical.

“When you think about the natural world, nature outperforms us in its diversity, in its complexity, but does so at ambient temperature, at low pressures, using water for the most part as a solvent.” Warner says. By helping humans to think more like a leaf (or an ant hill, or a 1,200-year-old oak, or a bacterial colony), biomimicry is tapping that multi-billion-year head start to bring the same kind of complexity and diversity to human invention.

Six examples of how bio-inspired solutions are reshaping the world can be found in this gallery

Brands get the consumers they deserve. Treat consumers like morons and they act like morons. They don't really pay attention. They use their DVRs with a vengeance, and rip through what we have to offer them. When asked, they will say advertising is something crafted by idiots for idiots. When asked, they will say they can't really remember that Claritin spot. And this can't surprise us, because after all the ad shut them out. It created a cultural artifact so obvious and annoying that no one will waste a second on it.

But if we give the consumer a little credit, they reward us. They watch the ad. They dwell on the ad. They relate to the ad. And they relate to the brand. Give the consumer a little credit and that credit rebounds to the brand.

Jim Collins (author of Good to Great) and Tom Peters (In Search of Excellence) have long advised companies what to do. But both suggest that the secret to high performance for individuals is deciding what not to do.

For instance, if you're reading this column at your desk, somewhere within an arm's length is your "to-do" list. Many of us can't imagine daily life without it. A to-do list focuses our attention and delivers a delicious dose of dopamine to our brains each time we cross off an item.

Peters has nothing against to-do lists, but he says that they're insufficient – that we should also create "to-don't" lists. He recommends that we specify and enumerate what holds us back – the actions, behaviours and obligations that sap our energy, distract our attention and therefore ought to be avoided.

"Get rid of all the clutter that undermines your sense of focus," Peters has advised. Your to-don't list can help you illuminate what belongs on your to-do list. As Peters puts it: "What you decide not to do is probably more important than what you decide to do."

Meanwhile, Collins has reached a similar conclusion. Years ago, when he was a graduate student, a professor told Collins that he wasn't leading a disciplined life, but merely a busy one.

She asked him how he would change his behaviour if he learned one day that he had just inherited $20 million but that he had only 10 more years to live. In that situation, she asked him, what would you stop doing? Thus was born Collins's counterpart to Peters's innovation. He calls it a "stop-doing list" – and he compiles it once a year.

"A great piece of art is composed not just of what is in the final piece, but equally important, what is not," Collins wrote in 2003. "It is the discipline to discard what does not fit – to cut out what might have already cost days or even years of effort – that distinguishes the truly exceptional artist and marks the ideal piece of work, be it a symphony, a novel, a painting, a company or, most important of all, a life."

The key insight of both Peters and Collins is that we spend too much time on addition and not nearly enough on subtraction. Yet it's only by taking away what doesn't matter that allows us to reveal what does matter.

....

So I urge you to give the Peters or Collins method a try – and make a list of your own. Lists have a peculiar resonance in our lives – a power to shape our behaviour in ways that other language forms often cannot match.

After all, God didn't offer Moses a few paragraphs of prose on Mount Sinai. Instead, he presented his commandments as a list. And, as it happens, eight out of 10 of them tell us what not to do.

To make an informed judgment about your potential boss, it's important to ask the right questions during the interview:

1. Start out by asking about a past project or accomplishment in detail. Get into specifics. Instead of hearing responses like, "I believe in delegating to my people," you'll want to get to, "We had a weekly meeting on the project, and people came to me between meetings with something they wanted my help with..." Make it a point to find out what the manager did, not just what she read in the latest issue of HBR. This way you'll begin to understand how she actually conducts business in practice, and whether or not that's a culture you want to be a part of.
2. Ask about customers or colleagues. A good starting point is, "Can you give me an example of a typical customer, and what they are like?" Not only do you want to know what the customers are like, but also the manager's attitude toward customers. If you are great with customers and your manager doesn't respect them, your manager probably won't like you. And if you treat customers the way your manager does — i.e., without respect — your customers won't like you either.

Even before the Q&A section of the interview, look for repeated patterns of unconscious behavior. This will help you predict future behavior. Notice how the interviewer is saying things, not just what he is saying. Does he spend a lot of time talking about himself? Does he often use the word "I," and never use "we" to describe his department? You can expect that manager to be pretty self-focused. Or, does the manager talk about "the team" and compliment or refer to others on the team? If you are a team-oriented person, you probably will have an easier time working for the second manager, regardless of what the job is.

Listen carefully during the interview. Does the manager grill you? Challenge your answers? Not let you get a word in edgewise? You can expect that to continue on the job. Or, does the manager welcome you? Show you around? Give you a chance to present yourself? You can expect that in the future, too.

ore than 45 million Americans now belong to a health club, up from 23 million in 1993. We spend some $19 billion a year on gym memberships. Of course, some people join and never go. Still, as one major study — the Minnesota Heart Survey — found, more of us at least say we exercise regularly. The survey ran from 1980, when only 47% of respondents said they engaged in regular exercise, to 2000, when the figure had grown to 57%.

And yet obesity figures have risen dramatically in the same period: a third of Americans are obese, and another third count as overweight by the Federal Government's definition. 

The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.

...

If evolution didn't program us to lose weight through exercise, what did it program us to do? Doesn't exercise do anything?

Sure. It does plenty. In addition to enhancing heart health and helping prevent disease, exercise improves your mental health and cognitive ability. A study published in June in the journal Neurology found that older people who exercise at least once a week are 30% more likely to maintain cognitive function than those who exercise less. Another study, released by the University of Alberta a few weeks ago, found that people with chronic back pain who exercise four days a week have 36% less disability than those who exercise only two or three days a week.

But there's some confusion about whether it is exercise — sweaty, exhausting, hunger-producing bursts of activity done exclusively to benefit our health — that leads to all these benefits or something far simpler: regularly moving during our waking hours. We all need to move more — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says our leisure-time physical activity (including things like golfing, gardening and walking) has decreased since the late 1980s, right around the time the gym boom really exploded. 

...

The problem ultimately is about not exercise itself but the way we've come to define it. Many obesity researchers now believe that very frequent, low-level physical activity — the kind humans did for tens of thousands of years before the leaf blower was invented — may actually work better for us than the occasional bouts of exercise you get as a gym rat. "You cannot sit still all day long and then have 30 minutes of exercise without producing stress on the muscles," says Hans-Rudolf Berthoud, a neurobiologist at LSU's Pennington Biomedical Research Center who has studied nutrition for 20 years. "The muscles will ache, and you may not want to move after. But to burn calories, the muscle movements don't have to be extreme. It would be better to distribute the movements throughout the day."

For his part, Berthoud rises at 5 a.m. to walk around his neighborhood several times. He also takes the stairs when possible. "Even if people can get out of their offices, out from in front of their computers, they go someplace like the mall and then take the elevator," he says. "This is the real problem, not that we don't go to the gym enough." (Read "Is There a Laziness Gene?")

I was skeptical when Berthoud said this. Don't you need to raise your heart rate and sweat in order to strengthen your cardiovascular system? Don't you need to push your muscles to the max in order to build them?

Actually, it's not clear that vigorous exercise like running carries more benefits than a moderately strenuous activity like walking while carrying groceries. You regularly hear about the benefits of exercise in news stories, but if you read the academic papers on which these stories are based, you frequently see that the research subjects who were studied didn't clobber themselves on the elliptical machine. A routine example: in June the Association for Psychological Science issued a news release saying that "physical exercise ... may indeed preserve or enhance various aspects of cognitive functioning." But in fact, those who had better cognitive function merely walked more and climbed more stairs. They didn't even walk faster; walking speed wasn't correlated with cognitive ability.

There's also growing evidence that when it comes to preventing certain diseases, losing weight may be more important than improving cardiovascular health. In June, Northwestern University researchers released the results of the longest observational study ever to investigate the relationship between aerobic fitness and the development of diabetes. The results? Being aerobically fit was far less important than having a normal body mass index in preventing the disease.

...

In short, it's what you eat, not how hard you try to work it off, that matters more in losing weight. You should exercise to improve your health, but be warned: fiery spurts of vigorous exercise could lead to weight gain. I love how exercise makes me feel, but tomorrow I might skip the VersaClimber — and skip the blueberry bar that is my usual postexercise reward.

Many wikipedia articles have coordinates. Many have references to historic events. Me (@godawful) and Tom Martin (@heychinaski) cross referenced the two to create a dynamic visualization of Wikipedia's view of world history. Watch as empires fall, wars break out and continents are discovered.

This won "Best Visualization" at Matt Patterson's History Hackday in January, 2011. To make it, we parsed an xml dump of all wikipedia articles (30Gb) and pulled out 424,000 articles with coordinates and 35,000 references to events. Cross referencing these produced 15,500 events with locations. Then we mapped them over time.

Turns out there are more than 100 ways to spell Muammar Muhammand al-Gaddafi’s name in English.  Here is a chart of the variations: