@T: ALWAYS THE TWAIN

This is a glimpse into sample topics we’ll be able to contextualize in the near future with TWAIN IT^TM:

I know that people are bound to ask, “Is it like Digg / reddit / twitter?” etc etc etc.

No because those systems are based on +1 / -1 clicks that drive a news item up their lists on the homepage. However, just because an item may be popular (or in some cases subject to ramping) does not mean that it is relevant to us or insightful. Quantity is not quality and what we want is to be informed by a single simple metric that would indicate both to us. Maybe we’ll call it the “Twain Index” or something (LOL) — just like we have the FTSE100 or NASDAQ or S+P indices, except the Twain Index would have explicit qualifiers and not inferred quality from some quantitative number.

Anyway, TWAIN IT is all about contextualizing the content (enabling the differentiation within it) and having tools to qualify information so that we’ll understand WHY we like that product / service / piece of content, its specific personal utility to us and not simply that we give it some thumbs-up/ thumbs-down or like/dislike ranking en masse.

We’ve made huge advances since the era of Roman amphitheaters, so it’s about time our approval and recommendation systems are smarter than those primitive practices or the nursery school habits of 5-star rating systems.

Moreover, TWAIN IT will capture the intent of online users and track what they intend to do with the online content they’re interested in.

Our objective with content is to……..MAKE SENSE OF AND WITH IT. Plus to include in that process more value and reward for those who engage with the tools on our collective journey towards sense.

Readers may have seen Google celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Pac-Man game yesterday in the shape of Google Doodle’s interpretation of it on Google’s homepage. At first, the interactivity of Google’s logo completely passed me by until someone flagged it in an email so I decided to play the game for about half an hour (the results can be seen below). Incidentally, just as Apple has Jonathan Ive as one of its genius designers so Google has Dennis Hwang, whose work with their corporate logo everyday tells us something wonderful about the human mind: WE HAVE IMAGINATION AND IT’S EQUALLY AS ELEGIAC AS FUNCTIONAL!

Now readers should know that as kids my parents encouraged us to play lots of sports and games, including Pac-Man. Most weekdays I was in training either at dance classes, chess club or the athletics track. Weekends we spent at the beach or hiking up hills where my father would teach us about different plants and flowers and how to differentiate between cumulus and cirrus clouds. In many ways we were seriously lucky that we didn’t have a sedentary existence and they encouraged us to stimulate our intelligence and to be ACTIVE. This activity included playing handheld, card and computer games like “bomb catcher”, Nim’s Gate and various shoot-em-ups as well as what now constituent the role-playing, problem-solving scenarios of MMORGs like World of Warcraft.

That’s right, I was a sporty nerd child and I’ve never understood illogically imposed social constructs — such other people telling us we either have to be sporty, non-academic and popular OR nerdy, brainy and socially awkward. Actually, since our brains are adaptable and our limbs are flexible……..We can do whatever we want, including be sporty, nerdy and popular.

LOL, :*).

In recent years some neuroscientists like Baroness Susan Greenfield have openly criticized digital developments, games and social networks as potential sources of what they call the “infantilization of the brain” as well as encouraging what they regard as “destructive nihilism” that desensitizes us when we play these shoot-em-up or  ”be greedy, gobble everything in sight” games. It’s obvious that Pac-Man is part of the latter grouping of games, :*).

Needless to say, whilst I respect a lot of neuroscience research, there are personal experiences which mean that I don’t accept all of their theories or findings. Sometimes, some of them seem to be killjoys or fuddy-duds who weren’t lucky enough to enjoy games when they were kids and now want to prevent others from participating in some mental stimulation! In a sense the question for neuroscientists isn’t about which faculties of the brain that such games destroy or arrest, it should be questions along the lines of:

* How does it develop co-ordinated dexterity (audio-visual and manual movements of the mouse/joystick)?

* What problem solving or strategic development is happening in each game scenario?

* Where and why are the emotional chemical releases happening, and could excitement stimulus induced by such games be re-applied to make cancer sufferers (or others recovering from injury) motivated?

Let me explain this in more detail. When I play sports or computer games I can sense the adrenalin increase inside as well as whichever chemicals are associated with competitiveness. I’m rarely competitive against others but consistently competitive about improving on the way I performed before. Male testosterone is said to rise when we compete and I’d say that there’s probably female oestrogen since, within game play, we can feel very fiercely protective of our team and also defending a score line if we’re in the lead and these traits of protectionism are female. In both cases of testosterone and oestrogen release I feel motivated to DO.

Ergo, there’s every reason that sports and computer games can be appropriately used as motivation stimulus for those recuperating from illness.

Anyway, readers are probably wondering how I fared in my Pac-Man games. Below are some screenshots of my live games and it may be helpful if I provide some game tips here to reflect on how I played:

(1.) Before the game starts, survey the maze terrain your Pac-Man must navigate.

Gain some understanding of where the exits are on either side of the board. Also, notice the awkward corners, blind alleys and cul-de-sacs where you don’t want your Pac-Man to be trapped by the ghosts.

Obviously identify the corners where the big gold discs are. When your Pac-Man eats these then the ghosts will turn a royal blue color and give you an opportunity to earn lots of points by catching them.

(2.) Make good use of the three lives your Pac-Man is allocated.

Apply your survey of the game terrain and divide it into three target territories. Then prioritize which of these the Pac-Man should try to eat all the gold coins first.

Square it with yourself from the outset that you will lose Pac-Man lives. Your objective is to preserve each life for as long as possible so avoid pathways that will take you directly into the clutches of the ghosts.

(3.) Be aware of the ghosts’ positions and when they become potential targets for your Pac-Man.

Here, the main trick is to avoid any pathways where two ghosts can double-up on your Pac-Man and trap him. Therefore, when running away from the ghosts stay on circular routes without cul-de-sacs. Wherever possible, escape via the exit on either side of the board and make use of this feature intelligently so that your Pac-Man ends up on the opposite side and far away from his nemesis ghosts.

When they become royal blue ghosts, capture as many as possible since they can add up to 400 points to your score whilst a gold coin is only 10 points. Also watch out for the appearance of fruit in the maze. Eating these will add 100 points.

SO………instead of arresting my neural development as a child — like some of the neuroscientists’ today fear and expound —…..Pac-Man actually helped me develop spatial reasoning, numeracy and quantity (because each ghost, coin and fruit has a numerical value), map reading, conditioning for loss of a Pac-Man life, protectiveness of that life as far as possible and productive competitiveness (it’s fun to be able to outsmart games systems whether that’s chess, cards or Pac-Man).

:*).

As readers will see, during my games, I managed to eat all the gold coins without being caught by the ghosts, earned extra fruit and got fairly high marks. My best score was 19,220 for a single player:

For 2-players it was 18,880 (18,260 and 620) for a game in which the board was cleared once and most of those points were obtained from eating the ghosts. The 620 occurred because blue ghosts would hit the pathway of the second Pac-Man — although the one I was navigating scored 18,260 on its own.

Here’s how to have a good fun game…………………….

(i.) The game starts with your three Pac-Man lives. One game typically takes less than 5 minutes.

.

(ii.) Clear everything on the left-hand side:

If you manage to do it well — like in this example — you might have 4,500 points with 2 Pac-Man lives still remaining:

(3.)  Next clear everything in the middle and as much of the right-hand side as possible:

(4.) Now try to clear the board!

You might even have 7,750 points by the time you clear the board:

(5.) Once this happens, a new board appears and you’re still in play. The extra fruit is the strawberry as shown in bottom right corner above the cherries.

If you manage to clear this board as well………..You’ll get a pineapple in the new board. This is what I managed to do on 9,110 points with one Pac-Man life left:

Ah and before the third board appears there’s a little animation sequence you get to see which you wouldn’t if you don’t make it to the third board.

(6.) Keep playing until your Pac-Man loses all three lives. The highest score I’ve gotten so far is 19,220 which is quite good, :*).

Now the worst-case scenario is not actually being trapped or caught by the ghosts. It’s actually when your Pac-Man manages to clear the board………..except for a single gold coin! Can readers spot it?

Good luck to any readers who plan to spend half an hour today playing Google-PacMan and here’s a YouTube video to prep you before you embark on some fun and brain training!

Today it occurred to me to coin a term that encapsulates how applying quantitative methods and approaches to code without also incorporating quality dimensions (which include emotions, tastes, perceptions, wit, values and beliefs) leads to deficient decision-making. I’m calling it “ALGORITHM AUTISM” (© Twain 刘秋艳, 16 May 2010).

Its definition is as follows:

Algorithm autism is a state of syntax and audiovisual deficiency in the input, process and output stages of code which don’t enable the machine to interpret or relate the socio-emotional elements of content, and thereby understand its context and make sense of it.

Given my previous definition of information as “a consciousness of quantity and quality that enables differentiation and contextualization over time”, the definition of INFORMATION AUTISM is as follows:

Information autism occurs when the constituents of information are purely quantitative, objective facts or data objects which don’t carry any associated subjective contextual qualifiers such as human emotions, tastes, perceptions, wit/humor, beliefs and values.

Examples of autistic information would be most of the equations in quantum theory and that underpin risk management models (===> implications for understanding why and how the global financial crisis happened). Examples of non-autistic information could be found in psychometric and EQSQ tests such as Myers-Brigg, Alpha Assessment for Leadership, Belbin, Saville-Holdsworth and Simon Baron-Cohen etc. Simon Baron-Cohen is the Cambridge professor cousin of Sacha Baron-Cohen of ‘Bruno’ and ‘Borat’ movie fame.

Why did I choose this designation of autism?

Well, it’s well known in medical circles that autistic children are often highly intelligent (numerate savants and linguistic encyclopedia). However, they’re afflicted by an inability to read, interpret and understand the emotional states of others and nor do they have much concept of social relationships and their role in the dynamics. Their brains process mechanistic, metaphysical inputs (numbers, words) but don’t capture or process those socio-emotional codes that would make them understand the philosophical and psychological motivations underpinning another human being’s communications and interactions.

So………if we think about the neural networks of the World Wide Web and the codes which are streaming between its nodes…….It’s arguable that there’s algorithm autism. We have lots of functions that enable us to capture and interpret numbers and words (binary, probabilities, data objects). Yet none that enable us to capture and interpret socio-emotional context and thereby make sense of the whole of it. Therefore, the algorithm is itself autistic.

This has far-reaching consequences in global finance terms because it means the risk management models — which are built from increasingly complex and sophisticated mathematics (chaos, Black-Scholes etc.) — as well as economic models en masse are FAILING TO CAPTURE THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HUMAN QUALIFIERS which actually drive human engagement, intent and consumption of any piece of content, product, service, lifestyle etc. It’s been commented upon broadly in this MIT Technology Review article, even if no solutions have been proposed there.

Now, in the case of human autism there are methods to help those with the condition to deal with it. Plus there’s support for their loved ones to identify it, appreciate that it makes their autistic child special in different ways from other children and work with it. In the case of algorithm autism………..We need and are going to find methods in object-oriented programming (OOPs) in conjunction with whatever semantics technology has to offer (NLP, machine learning, AI, neural nets et al) to re-orient code pathways so that the machines do comprehend those socio-emotional elements of content that will enable it all to make sense and help us arrive at more informed decision-making.

And, no, the existing sentiment analysis algorithms do not tackle or resolve their own autism bias. They’re not able to interpret socio-emotional context with much degree of accuracy. For example, let’s take a look at Twitrratr and the search term “facebook” today and let me highlight some obvious examples of “algorithm autism”:

This last week has seen unprecedented criticism of Facebook’s privacy policy with Google trends showing that “how do I delete my facebook account” is increasing in popularity:

The Institute of Quantitative Studies at Harvard University has also pointed out how the number of words in Facebook’s privacy policy has grown over the last 5 years, from 1004 to 5830 (which makes it even longer than the Constitution).

So……..existing empirical and anecdotal evidence — Google trends and numerous examples of users threatening to leave Facebook en mass or griping about it all across the socmedia space — indicates to us that the sentiment towards Facebook is negative. Yet Twitrratr shows only 3.89% of comments as negative, 10.03% as positive and 86.08% as neutral. Superficially, this may look acceptable but when we manually sanity-check some of those comments, it becomes clear that Twitrratr’s sentiment extractions are……..AUTISTIC. They can’t read or interpret the socio-emotional context to any degree of reliable accuracy. Here are some specific examples from about 50 comments:

(1.) lied! i didn’t have lunch…i just worked. now i’m having lunch and playing a little on facebook. still listening to cool vibes — This has been bucketed into “positive” when in fact the word “cool” is in reference to the music this commenter is listening to and not specifically to facebook itself.

(2.) methinks i want to take some modeling pics. any burgeoning/talented photogs need willing subjects? xxxxxx@gmail.com, facebook or dm me — This has been bucketed into “positive” when in fact it belongs to “neutral” because it doesn’t make any sentiment about whether the commentator likes or dislikes Facebook itself.

(3.) glad to see most of the online retail partners I work with have a presence on Facebook — This has been bucketed into “neutral” when it’s clearly a positive statement.

(4.) found living kidney donor through Facebook – another perk of social media — This has been bucketed into “neutral” when it’s clearly a positive statement.

(5.) is posting 1 obama supporting link for every anti obama post he sees on his facebook gotta keep it fare — This has been bucketed into “positive” when in fact it belongs to “neutral” because it doesn’t make any sentiment about whether the commentator likes or dislikes Facebook itself. Actually, the brand in question is President Obama rather than Facebook!

(6.) having fun the toolbar from www.cooliris.com. wicked for my iphone, facebook, and surfing……and i’m not getting paid to pimp — This has been bucketed into “negative” because the sentiment engine interpreted the word “wicked” as a negative term when it’s clearly a positive statement — albeit not for Facebook specifically but for cooliris. So Twitrratr’s natural language processing is being doubly autistic.

(7.) eathing lunch and sending out birthday greetings on facebook while reading the comics in today’s paper. adhd or wickedmulti-tasking? — This has been bucketed into “negative” because the sentiment engine interpreted the word “wicked” as a negative term when it’s clearly a positive statement — albeit not for Facebook specifically but for the commentator’s own ability to multi-task. So Twitrratr is being doubly autistic in this instance too.

Some people might argue that 10-20 percent of inaccuracy in 50 comments is not a big deal. However, there is something called compounded inaccuracy which — like compound interest rates — can accumulate to quite a sizable influence. The main issue, though, is how this socio-emotional deficiency of context then propagates and permeates throughout the rest of social media which……CONTRIBUTES TO MORE NOISE RATHER THAN TOWARDS SENSE.

Ergo, autistic algorithms are making the Web less intelligent.

How I arrived at this term of “ALGORITHM AUTISM” was the result of twaining elements from these topics: dsycalculia, DNA, Objective-C language, IQ-EQ, dexterity and discern. One day (when my book gets published), I’ll explain exactly how this twaining happened.

:*).

Well, the revelatory incidents that happen to us are (more often than not) random, serendipitous and disrupt our previous constructs. Earlier today when I went in search of some iPhone codes I happened across some interesting sites and content:

• Artificial Intelligence – Natural Language Processing – Multiple formats – Christopher Manning, Stanford
• Artificial Intelligence – Machine Learning – YouTube – iTunes –Multiple formats – Andrew Ng, Stanford
• Computer Science 1 – Feed – UCLA
• Discrete Mathematical Structures YouTube – Kamala Krithivasan, IIT
• Introduction to Computer Science: Programming Abstractions- YouTube – iTunes - Multiple formats – Julie Zelenski, Stanford
• Introduction to Computer Science: Programming Paradigms -YouTube – iTunes - Multiple formats – Jerry Cain, Stanford
• Introduction to Problem Solving & Programming – YouTube – Deepak Gupta, IIT
• iPhone Application Development (Spring 2009)- iTunes – Stanford
• Multimedia Systems - iTunes – Surendar Chandra, Notre Dame
• Operating Systems and System Programming – iTunes – Feed – Multiple professors, UC Berkeley
• Operating Systems Principles – iTunes – Surendar Chandra, Notre Dame
• Principles of Digital Communications I - YouTube – iTunes – Profs Gallagher and Zheng, MIT
• The Future of the Internet – iTunes – Ramesh Johari, Stanford

The first thing which is noticeable is that these lectures are provided FOR FREE by US institutions, notably ones where the alumni include the founders of Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Paypal, eBay and the other major Internet brands. Somewhat struck by this (and following a link from a site full of code from Applestore apps), I ended up at Harvard’s summer school website:

Then I decided to check what MIT has to offer:

This also made me wonder whether their UK counterparts offer similar summer school courses on computing or Internet entrepreneurship:

So…….whilst Ivy League schools organize summer schools and FREE ONLINE SEMINARS wherein adult professionals can hone their knowhow about computing (potentially with participation counting towards actual exam credits) the UK’s elite institutions don’t seem to provide these. For example, whilst Cambridge offers a wide range of humanities subjects like Egyptology and Landscape History it doesn’t offer any of the types of computing courses listed above from the likes of Harvard, MIT, Stanford and UC Berkeley.

Another notable differentiation is in the fee structure. A computing summer school course at Harvard costs US$2,580 for a (4 credits) course. The Entrepreneurial summer school fee at London Business School is GBP6,000 and the focus is on the business plan rather than the computing architecture or design of the start-up.

Hmmn……..maybe the two approaches to computer education (even at summer school level) explain why and how the US produces  the founders of Google, Facebook, eBay, etc. — i.e., THE CULTURE IS CONDUCIVE.

Now, let’s do some twaining here. I hope readers will recall my model for Consciousness which I included in the ‘Global Brain’ knol a while ago:

Perhaps in computing terms (particularly their ability to create the Googles etc.), the Americans are more conscious than the Brits because they have a better developed and enlarged culture of computing that originates from their education provision and comprehensive methods of digital distribution in the first place? Just as Americana culture has also proliferated via the movies, television and apps? Naturally, the Brits could present the case that they have better communication and creativity since it is where Monty Python wordplay, the Swinging Sixties and great Shakespearean prose sparked………………….

Hmmn…..and maybe it’s the Italians who can most claim the cognisance part of any global online consciousness since their word “cognoscenti” inspired the words “digerati” and “technorati”? Command/control would most likely be the contribution of the efficient Germans. Coherence the Chinese because of their natural ying-yang dynamics. Now let’s say collaboration is a Scandinavian trait whilst consideration has its origins from Greek-Indian-Arab philosophy.

Voilà, global consciousness and how each educational contribution from each continent potentially fits in……..(in Twain’s brain, that is) — LOL.

Anyway, over the next few days I’ll be in code bunker benefiting from the Ivy League professors’ wisdoms about mobile languages and architecture.

Today I read this in the paper version of the ‘London Evening Standard’:

There’s no interest on my part about whether Google’s European PR chief is / is not close to any candidate for the Labor leadership. However, I am interested in finding out how Google’s strategic alliances and partnerships in Europe are working out and what their perspectives are on the technology horizon and business models. This is what the Google Zeitgeist series of conferences are all about: showcasing how well Google’s partnerships (including strategic investments) are playing out.

Ergo…..once online, I decided to see whether there was any more information available about Google’s Zeitgeist 2010 conference so I googled “Google Zeitgeist 2010 Eric Schmidt” and “google zeitgeist europe 2010 eric schmidt”. The automated options feature offered the possibility of viewing the results on standard basis (Wonder wheel, Timeline and Page previews) like so:

Since Wonder wheel was unfamiliar as a tool to me, I decided to take a look and this is what it produced: a Mind Map-esque visualization of clustered topic classifications:

Here’s a YouTube video from last May 2009 of a Google engineer explaining how the Wonder wheel works for the search term “stir fry”:

Ok, so that looks pretty cool and neat, right? A Mind Map-esque topic clustering approach to search. Cool except for three FUNCTIONAL limitations:

(1.) In no view did it actually surface any links to “Google Zeitgeist 2010 Eric Schmidt” which was the term searched for.

Under the usual list format, the top PageRanked link was ‘Google chief hints at partnership with Twitter’ by the Daily Telegraph from………May 2009!

Under the Timeline view, listings were provided in order of 2008, 2009 and 2010 with the entries in 2010 actually from 2008 and 2009 ===> date relevance and data quality control issues in the Google algorithms are apparent here.

Under the Wonder wheel view, THERE’S NO DATE REFERENCE AT ALL! So it clusters terms like “eric schmidt twitter”, “eric schmidt larry page sergey brin” and “ceo eric schmidt” without simultaneously time ordering these clusters to enable us to discern which ones relevant.

(2.) In no view is there any indication of the quality of the linked to content.

(3.) In no view is there any ability for the user to treat the Mind Map-esque visualization tool like an editable wiki, so that we can actually topic cluster terms according to our OWN PERCEPTIONS and contextual order of terms.

For example, when I google for “Google Zeitgeist 2010 Eric Schmidt” I want this information to either appear in the Mind Map-esque Wonder wheel or be editable according to my needs:

* where the Google Zeitgeist 2010 is taking place (including interesting landmarks in the vicinity);

* who of Google’s strategic partners will be attending, providing keynotes and panels and some bios of these people;

* when each session will commence and how long they’ll last;

* content of each session and implications for the technology horizon;

* how much the event will cost (or even information about it being free to attend but by invitation only); and

* what are the key take-away points likely to be from Google Zeitgeist 2010?

At the moment all that the Wonder wheel gives are these clustered terms (in a clockwise direction from the top):

* google ceo

* google zeitgeist europe 2009 eric schmidt

* john mickelthwait

* nikesh arora

* sergey brin

* sir richard branson

* fireside chat

* larry page

The conclusion would be that the Wonder wheel is an interesting visualization of search terms but the same limitations that persist in Google’s standard lists persists in this snazzy visualization and attempt at topic clustering. These limitations are:

(1.) Relevance — including date.

(2.) Acuity / accuracy.

(3.) Context.

(4.) Personalization.

(5.) QUALITY metrics for the content — not simply the binary-based frequency count or probability proximity of content associations (Bayes, group sets and cellular automata, in “maths speak”).

So…….as I noted in an email exchange with someone at MIT Collaboratorium…..topic clustering is an evolution on from time stamping content for search term surfacing, but there’s still some way to go before machine code works like our natural organic brains and the way we classify, orientate, prioritize, contextualize and synergize information on a personalized quantitative and importantly QUALIFYING basis for added value.

There is a wheel tool in 360-2020′s plans but it looks and works nothing like a Mind Map or Google’s Wonder wheel. Today was the first time I’d happened upon the latter and it’s just lucky that I have a completely different approach to Google’s Wonder wheel so that, hopefully, those 5 persistent limitations I note (which are applicable to most search engines) become……..increasingly no more.

Ok, so……….onwards with the Twain approach……….(since the tools I want don’t yet exist and it doesn’t matter how many MIT PhD Google engineers are working on the Wonder wheel because they’re still producing those persistent limitations I can spot — regardless of how “pretty” the visualization tool makes their search lists look).

LOL, :*).

After about five days of political drama following last Thursday 6 May’s election, the UK finally has a new Prime Minister and a proposed coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Given that no political party won an outright overall majority, this combination is emerging as the one which is the most viable and optimistic for the country. On the one hand there’ll be the Conservative’s commitment to tackling the GBP163 billion government deficit this year — or as business executives would call it “trimming the bloat” — (rather than Labor’s proposed delay). On the other complementary hand, it’s likely the Liberal Democrats pledges for a fairer tax system for those who earn less than GBP10,000 per annum will be adopted — thus helping the many and not the few.

The full details of the coalition proposals and who will be appointed to which Cabinet posts will be released in the next few days. First, though, there are various party parliamentary processes both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will need to complete before there’s a definitive agreement, but it looks promising……..

Here’s the photograph of the Queen accepting David Cameron’s proposal to form a new government. He’s the 12th Prime Minister during the Queen’s reign to-date and it’s remarkable to remember that she is the one constant between Winston Churchill and the ten other intervening Prime Ministers to where the UK is now in 2010! As for David Cameron himself, apparently he’s the youngest PM since 1812 and the 19th Old Etonian to become PM, that’s what the UK media are reporting.

Hopefully, this new coalition government will be able to rise to all its challenges smartly and effectively. Bonne chance!

First a quick update on how the Keynote went and the reception in the evening. I was a little apprehensive that the topic “360-2020, online consciousness and the need to move towards a non-binary bias” would be too involved for the audience. Thankfully, everyone “got it” and there was a consensus that we need to move towards ratings systems and code approaches that are not only about binary, probabilistic and over-simplistic inputs but to find ways to capture the entire rainbow spectrum of human complexity and context.

One business strategist, after speaking with me for about two minutes without having been at my Keynote, started to introduce me to others at the reception in the evening as “X, you have to meet Twain. She’s going to win the Nobel Prize one day. You heard me say it here first, ok? Ok?” Another female entrepreneur said that my presentation was “very deep”.

Both comments were remarkably generous on their part and it’s odd that two strangers would say this about me because…………my good friend GC, who’s known me for many years, also said that he believes I’ll win the Nobel Prize in my lifetime once I started explaining the concept of 360-2020 to him.  Without exception all of my closest friends have said I’m “deep”; they happen to be “deep” too and maybe this explains why we always have meaningful and multi-layered conversations rather than superficial chit-chat about inconsequentials.

Anyway, all-in-all the Keynote wasn’t perfect but the feedback was universally positive.

What I learnt from the VC panel session was that a Conservative victory is one that most VCs, investors and entrepreneurs would favor. Some VCs were very direct about how cashflow issues would mean a number of SMEs would fail this year because of associated changes by the Labor government to the small loans guarantee — regardless of which party takes office on 7 May.

Columnists in the City of London’s financial newspapers are almost universally endorsing David Cameron and the Conservative Party.

• http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/why-britain-needs-conservative-government

So what exactly are their policies on business? Here they are:

Our goal is simple: to make Britain the easiest and the best place in the world to set up and grow a business.

We will:

Stop Labour’s jobs tax that will kill the recovery;

Cut Corporation Tax rates. We will cut the main rate from 28p to 25p and the small companies’ rate from 22p to 20p, funded by reducing complex reliefs;

Exempt all new businesses starting in the first two years of a Conservative Government from Employers’ National Insurance on the first ten employees they hire in the first year;

Reduce the burden of red tape on business with a ‘one in one out’ rule for new regulation and regulatory budgets for departments so that new regulations cannot be introduced unless the burden is reduced elsewhere. And we will give the public the opportunity to force the worst regulations to be repealed;

Reduce the number of forms needed to register a new business – moving towards a ‘one-click’ registration model – with the aim of making Britain the fastest place in the world to start a business. We will also end restrictions on people starting a business in social housing to enable social tenants to become entrepreneurs;

Simplify business taxes. In our first Budget, we will set out a five year road map for the direction of business tax reform, providing greater certainty and stability to businesses. We will create an independent Office of Tax Simplification to review and suggest reforms to the tax system and its effect on small business, including IR35;

Extend government procurement to small and medium-sized businesses by cutting administrative requirements, with the aim of seeing 25 per cent of government contracts go to SMEs;

Make Britain Europe’s leading hi-tech exporter of manufactured goods by implementing Sir James Dyson’s recommendations to boost science and engineering.

Make small business rate relief automatic; and

Create more diverse sources of available credit for SMEs building on our proposals for a big, bold and simple National Loan Guarantee Scheme.

To create a new generation of small businesses, our Work for Yourself programme will help move people into self-employment. We will build a network of business mentors and offer substantial loans to would-be entrepreneurs, supporting self-employment and franchising as a route back into work. We will work with specialist organisations that already have a proven track record in this area, like the Prince’s Trust and the Bright Ideas Trust, to offer the best support.

We understand that enterprise will generate a sustainable recovery, not the state – that’s why we need to make Britain open for business again.

==========================================================================================

I’m putting these points here on my blog so that my children and I can look back on this blog one day and compare it with what the Conservatives’ policy is in 2020, 2030, 2040 etc.

It’s going to be an interesting 24-48 hours for the UK……………

Meanwhile I’ve been driving myself to distraction with font types.