Stritar's chronolog

Twitter's User Growth Goes Nowhere As It Meets Revenue Expectations Of $710M

Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:30:35 GMT

Pink Floyd – Welcome to the Machine

Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:32:24 GMT

The Risk board game dice roll probability calculator and battle simulator

Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:32:12 GMT

I know there are plenty of you out there who love to play the board game Risk. We're hooked on the Lord Of The Rings edition, and I still need to check out the very rare expansion pack one of my friends recently got. As you will see, I'm getting ready for it with all I've got, developing myself a weapon that will help me dominate the game. Something that will turn the odds in my favor without actually cheating. Say hi to my Risk battle simulator, which is able to calculate the chance of winning for specific Risk situations.

Launch

Risk is an interesting game, powered by simple mathematics. In the battle, the attacker throws three dice, the defender throws two. The attacker's advantage is the one extra die. The defender's advantage is that he/she wins when the dice are tied. Which, in the general situation of 3 dice vs. 2 dice roll, translates into the following odds: the attacker has 37.17% chance of winning, the defender has 33.58% chance of winning, and there's a 29.26 % chance of tie - they will both lose one army. But what about specific situations? How can I know if my 10 armies are enough against my opponent's 5+4?

Since I'm a developer and not a mathematician, I decided I will rather build a simple brute force JavaScript simulator than try to derive the formula behind the battles. An application that simulates 10.000 Risk fights (around 50.000 dice rolls) and calculates the result odds. That should be enough to make an approximation, right?

Risk's rules specify that the attacker always has to leave one army behind (can't use it to attack), and can attack any number of territories in a single turn. Which the calculator also takes into account. Every territory the attacker wins, his/her number of armies is subtracted by 1 (one army is left behind), and the last army is not able to attack. I think I got it right, but if you find and error, please let me know.

Risk dice roll battle simulation.

Besides, the simulator also knows how to calculate probabilities for specific single battle situations for different numbers of dice the attacker and defender throw, by going through all the possibilities of dice throw results (which means 7.776 (6⁵) different dice throws in 3 vs. 2 battle).

Risk dice roll possibilities and odds.

I made this to help myself and others understand and appreciate the statistics behind the dice. So, the next time you play Risk, don't forget to bring your phone and use the simulator to your unfair advantage. And if you're a developer, feel free to upgrade the algorithm (available on Github). Game on.

http://diceroll.stritar.net/risk.html
https://github.com/gstritar/DiceRoll

The Chemical Brothers – Another World

Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:20:32 GMT

RT @cdixon: Google Is Hiring An SEO Manager To Improve Its Rankings In Google http://t.co/RPv4RYTLzO

Thu, 16 Jul 2015 06:46:18 GMT

What This Chart Says About the Tech Sector

Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:08:45 GMT

Why are all browser logos and icons round (and blue)?

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:23:31 GMT

I'm not a professional graphic designer, but I've been doing web development for years and got to know a few things about it, both intentionally and accidentally. I hope my designer friends won't get mad with me simplifying design in this post, but the way I see it, there are mostly two main purposes design serves. One is to support function (present both in industrial and graphic design) and the other is to enable effective representation and communication (specific for graphic design).

Logos are probably one of the most praised elements of graphic design. They make an effective characterization of a company, product or service, besides being aesthetic and memorable to enable high user recollection. It's also good to have an original logo, something that stands out from the rest and helps a brand not to get mistaken with other brands. But there is always a trade-off between creativity and standard, and in our case of browser logos and icons, it looks like this desired representation was a bit more important than originality. Most of the browser logo designers went for a safe and predictable solution, producing one of the greatest graphic design cliches of our time.

When you think about the Internet and the World Wide Web, there are probably not so many geometrical shapes and colors you can associate it with. The net is huge, endless and fluid, so the proper shape is definitely not a triangle, a square or something else with edges. The net is global and it's everywhere, so the color representing it has to be something resembling our planet.

If you compare six of the most popular internet browser icons, you can see this concept in action. Most browser logos and icons are round and contain blue, except Opera, who went for red. But it's not just about the shape and the color, the bottom line is they generally look alike, using similar elements such as Earth, light beams and reflections. Opera logo stands out, but upon second observation, it kinda looks like an uncreative red Internet Explorer clone, so perhaps it's even worse than the others.

Are the designers behind these solutions to blame? Probably not. The internet browser is arguably the most widely used piece of software there is, so it's important that your mother also finds it's icon representable and appealing. The truth is we probably won't reinvent the World Wide Web or colonize the galaxy any time soon, so there is a good chance we also won't see any original and creative browser logos any time soon too. Therefore we just have to accept that round and blue it is.

Trademarks and logos are the property of their respective owners.

The end of recession or the coolest Slovenian billboard of 2014?

Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:41:51 GMT

A few days ago, a billboard captured my attention. Actually, we're talking about many billboards, since this metallurgy company called Bučar put them all over Ljubljana. The weird thing is, they are using them to recruit new employees. Wait a minute, there's something wrong with this picture! While everybody is aggressively trying to sell us stuff we don't really need, these guys are actually looking for new workers with billboards? In a country with an unemployment rate of 13%? Is this thing for real?

Let's try to understand what just happened here... The company itself seems to be the development of a capable entrepreneur Drago Bučar, whose business is growing like mad. Judging the billboard's design, I would guess the campaign is not a professional act, but rather something done internally, without much involvement from a marketing agency. But that doesn't change the fact the effect of the billboard is brilliant. While trying to find 10 new workers (as posted on their website), I believe Bučar actually managed to produce one of the most effective branding campaigns of this year in Slovenia, which already granted them an apperance on the national radio. Everybody wants to know who these guys are, and they were targeting somebody completely different. Can you believe the irony?

Of course, there is always the possibility that this billboard is a work of a mastermind genius, whose plan was to capture attention with false pretense, but I don't think so. This thing looks legit, and it's always nice to hear about prosperous companies from Slovenia. Good luck, kick ass!

Anggun – Snow on the Sahara

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:20:22 GMT

Superbad

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:44:56 GMT

3 1/2 stars

Au revoir tout le monde!

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:38:11 GMT

Men je pa ful lepa ta prekmurščina. 'deklina', 'mi pa tebé' itd. ^^ #bigbrotherslo

Fri, 22 May 2015 20:48:50 GMT

A ostali ste ze glasovali? :) #evrovizija #rajko @ryanboateng @zidariqi89 @5kast

Sat, 23 May 2015 22:10:13 GMT

8 Best Machine Learning Cheat Sheets

Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:44:30 GMT

3 Million Judgements of Books by their Covers

Thu, 03 Sep 2015 23:08:47 GMT

Blowing Up the Death Star Would Have Sunk the 'Star Wars' Economy, Research Says

Thu, 03 Dec 2015 15:12:33 GMT

Microsoft Neural Net Shows Deep Learning Can Get Way Deeper

Fri, 15 Jan 2016 06:39:54 GMT

Windows-branded computers on TV. Entering a new market or product placement fail?

Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:02:11 GMT

Lately I've been noticing a lot of television shows that used computers with a Windows logo on their back. Classic product placement, where advertising blends with an event, movie or a TV show. The master of product placement in the mentioned segment is currently Apple, who also has suitable products for most occasions – beautiful and recognizable laptop and desktop computers. But Microsoft doesn't make computers at all. It does make some hardware (Xbox, Zune), but its focus is mostly on software (and lately on consumer electronics), so why the hell would they want to advertise something that doesn't even exist? Have they lost their mind or are they entering yet another market?

The past years have been hell for Microsoft. Bill Gates left, and current CEO Steve Ballmer sold a huge pile of shares a few weeks ago. Apple even managed to become more valuable than Microsoft, and Microsoft is obviously looking for different opportunities to stay in the game. Because I don't really believe they will start producing computers (tablets perhaps?), I can imagine these product placement efforts were created to gain lost ground on the OS market and targeted against Apple, but I think they could have come up with something more appropriate. In my opinion, Microsoft's greatest opportunity still lies in business environments (Office, SQL, asp.net, …), but while they're trying to focus on other segments, they are loosing that enterprise software market to other players such as Google.

Product placement in general makes sense for Microsoft, with Xbox, Windows 7, Windows Mobile 7, even Kinect and Surface as perfect candidates, because they look cool and Microsoft actually produces (or will produce) them. But advertising Windows computers, that's a bit ridiculous. Perhaps this type of marketing actually works on other target groups, but for more tech-savvy consumers such as myself, it looks desperate and fake, because we all know Microsoft doesn't even make computers. Worse, it looks like Microsoft is trying to position itself close to Apple (even the logo imitates Apple's), but doesn't stand a chance against the design perfection of a Mac. In the end, all this money spent perhaps made Apple look cooler and might have even helped them more than it helped Microsoft.

Microsoft should focus on the fields it masters and does best (or at least try to expose their know-how and advantages), because they have little chance to succeed competing on the markets that are dominated by other players (Apple in design, Google in search). And they should stop marketing fake branded computers, because they simply look silly. Perhaps this October campaign was a short experiment or even some sort of the ultimate innovative marketing strategy made by the greatest advertising agency in the world which I don't understand and appreciate, but I think it's actually quite ineffective and wrong. Or am I wrong?

How I Met Your Mother: Season 6, Episode 4. Aired October 11th, 2010 on CBS.

Lie To Me: Season 3, Episode 2. Aired October 11th, 2010 on FOX.

The Mentalist: Season 3, Episode 5 (also other episodes). Aired October 21st, 2010 on CBS.

UPDATE (26.2.2011): Here are a few more shows doing it. It looks like it's a CBS and FOX thing.

The Good Guys: Season 1, Episode 15 (also other episodes). Aired October 29th, 2010 on FOX.

Bones: Season 6, Episode 14. Aired February 17th, 2011 on FOX.

5 reasons why I won't steal your idea

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 09:22:39 GMT

Since I'm a software architect and a web developer, I get often approached by people with their new ideas. In most cases, for some quality feedback, and on lucky days, for a rough quote about the costs of such a project. These people are usually very secretive about what they have, making me explain to them that it's far from my interest to steal that idea. One time, a guy even made me sign a Non-disclosure agreement before I could make him an offer for a service he was thinking about. After bargaining with me, he chose a different contractor, but ended up doing nothing, at least to my knowledge. He was obviously focused on the wrong things, instead of getting feedback from as many sources as possible, he was investing energy into bureaucracy and protection of his idea. Let me tell something to him and all others out there: Focus on your product, and don't worry about me stealing your idea. I won't. I have at least five reasons not to.

1. Your idea probably isn't as great as you think

I've seen a lot of different people who had "game-changing" ideas, at least so they though. A few of them actually managed to convince me and my partners that their idea is so amazing that it'll kick everyone's ass. Even though proper market research wasn't done, charisma is sometimes hard to resist, and if you are working with someone you've known for a long time, you are prepared to accept crazy terms, such as a delay of payment until this idea will start to generate revenue. After these specific ideas were put into the real world, it turned out there is a huge discrepancy between ideals and reality, and we ended up with unpaid invoices and ignored phone calls.

Ideas are something, execution is everything else. There is a long way inbetween, a way paved with upgrades, downgrades, changes, pivots, time and hard work. Millions have ideas, only a few can make them work. I've seen Seedcamp companies change their core concepts and business models completely, and these startups are already the best, selected from hundreds, if not thousands. When you start working on something and proceed ahead, the initial idea will often evolve beyond recognition. Not to mention there is a very strong possibility that someone else was already thinking about the same thing, except better, years earlier. Your idea isn't amazing, but it may be good enough to achieve something with proper execution. That's why you need feedback and partners.

2. I have plenty of ideas of my own

You know what's better than your idea? My idea!

Mostly because I kick ass, but also because people get emotionally attached to the thoughts they generate by themselves. I have so many ideas I don't know what to do with them. They are probably not really great (see reason 1), but they are mine, and I try hard to make a few of them come alive every now and then, when I have the time. During the day, I work on real-life projects, during the night, I play around.

When I decide on what to work on next, I usually look for the best ratio between actuality, complexity, required energy and potential. This means I've already made my own priority list of the services I will be rolling out in the future, and I must say, it would really be hard to put one of yours inside this packed list. I'm sure most developers think in a similar fashion, lacking resources to make everything they imagine a reality. Face it, there are hundred times as many people who have unrealized ideas, than people who don't know what to work on. Do the math.

3. Your idea probably requires specific passion and know-how

The idea lives strongest in the person who thought of it. It is a result of that person's experience from many fields, so it's hard to replicate in its full form without that experience. The ideas I've stumbled upon usually solve very specific and niche problems you can't solve without digging yourself into that field. Which most of us don't have time or the resources to do. The core of the idea represents the person who thought of it, it may be taken to another level by a different person, but in most cases, it requires the original author's knowledge, involvement and passion to work as it's supposed to.

I can't execute an idea which will revolutionize kindergarten children education, I don't know shit about the problem, I don't have any connections in the industry, and I'm simply not that passionate about that field.

4. Your idea requires your involvement as a product manager

In the past few years, we've implemented quite a few prototypes and services together with Neolab, and even though a few of them got some praise, they didn't make it to the mainstream. Take this blog for example, I developed it in early 2009, aggregating posts from different social services, presenting them (also) in a magazine form. What did I do with it? Nothing. Years later, a service called RebelMouse did something similar and raised millions in funding. Same goes for Twenity, a spin-off from Twitfluence, gamifying social authority measuring. Or Ljubljana Realtime, a social event discovery tool. All out there, but that's it.

I simply don't have enough energy to push a service beyond a point, or don't want to. Perhaps this fact will change someday, but at this point, you will need to be the product manager of your idea, and I can be its architect. Since I have a real company to run besides all of this, I can't afford to be one.

(Btw, if you think you could do anything with the above mentioned things, don't hesitate to give me a shout).

5. Karma and stuff

I believe in karma. Don't do evil and all of that. I would really feel uncomfortable if I would take someone else's baby and make it my own. So I won't, because this simply wouldn't be a fair thing to do. I value proper sleep above success.

But what if

Of course, there are always exceptions, and I can imagine I could encounter something that would go beyond all of my points above. Perhaps there is one idea that I've heard about years ago that would suit this description. If I ever decide to proceed with this project, I will let that person know what I'm doing and invite him to join the project. Even if I'm thinking about a thing that only faintly resembles the original concept, I can't deny it's that person's idea. And since this guy was able to think of such a marvelous thing so much time ago, he would surely make a great addition to the team (also see reason 3).

That's it. I won't steal your idea, so feel free to talk about your revolutionary innovation with me anytime. All I will do is to try to tear it apart and put it back together, and after we're done with that, if I get the chance, I will try to bring it to life.

Solving global and local records in SaaS database design

Sat, 20 Jul 2013 23:50:56 GMT

Lately, we've been seriously considering developing a new version of our framework. This one is already a few years old, and besides other problems it's facing, it lacks one very important thing - it's not suited for SaaS (Software as a Service) applications. Often, we would like to host a few simple projects (like multiple web pages) in a single database, but we are also thinking about developing a product / service, which we could offer to multiple clients. Making a product for different clients that would live in the same database is not simple, and requires an architecture that is both rigid and flexible, micro-useful and scalable.

The database model we currently use is doing quite well. It's able to support complex business-oriented systems, social portals and web sites, the core tables being the same across all applications. Sure, there are many redundant things, but we are aware where we should scale-down. More importantly, we have to decide how to upgrade this database model which is used in different applications to be able to work in a single database. I'm not that fond of using multiple databases or schemas in SaaS architecture, since this is a similar situation to which we have now, and it doesn't work that well. I'm certain having the same database for different clients is most suited for our business.

This means we will be having a ClientID (ApplicationID) in all the tables that will be used by all clients / applications. But what is the best way to take care of global and local records - records that are used by everyone versus those in only a few applications?

Let's assume we are building a CMS system for many sites, for which we will be needing two global Roles (Administrator, Moderator), but one instance will have its own Role as well (News editor). There are many ways we can go.

1. Local roles

This architecture means each client having it's own Roles. It's a simple solution, very flexible, but has many flaws - the most obvious being the benefits of global functionalities. E.g. if you're and Administrator, you can restart the site. Since we now have multiple Administrators (ID = 1,3,…), features like these get a bit harder to implement, and you can end up developing a totally different application for each client.

ApplicationID	RoleID (PK)	Role
1	1	Administrator
1	2	Moderator
2	3	Administrator
2	4	Moderator
2	5	News editor

2. Global Roles with a M:N table

The other option is to have global Roles, which are attached to a single application using a M:N table. This is an elegant and very flexible solution, but from my experience, you should avoid using M:N tables if possible. Of course, there are logical cases in which you can't, but you should always consider other options. Adding another table to the equation complicates queries, makes direct data browsing less understandable, besides raising the possibilities of errors.

RoleID (PK)	Role
1	Administrator
2	Moderator
3	News editor

ApplicationID (PK)	RoleID (PK)
1	1
1	2
2	1
2	2
2	3

3. Composite key

Another possibility that comes to mind is to use a composite key, which in reality, makes a single table from the above two (Roles, ApplicationsRoles). This allows using the same IDs for the same Roles in different systems. But it also requires having a composite key, which makes other things more complicated. It prevents making simple joins (you need to make a join by both primary keys), which means all the tables joined to Roles would need the ApplicationID field as well, even if they wouldn't really require it. Not to mention this model simply calls for trouble.

ApplicationID (PK)	RoleID (PK)	Role
1	1	Administrator
1	2	Moderator
2	1	Administrator
2	2	Moderator
2	3	News editor

4. Fake composite key

Sometimes, it makes sense using an additional primary key in a M:N relationship, so you can easily join the table further. We could do this as well, making the previous case a bit more easy-going. But this situation makes all the magic that we could do across the system a bit harder - since all the joins would be made using new local IDs, we are getting too close to the first solution (you can't make joins with the RoleID field, since it's not unique).

ID (PK)	ApplicationID	RoleID	Role
1	1	1	Administrator
2	1	2	Moderator
3	2	1	Administrator
4	2	2	Moderator
5	2	3	News editor

5. NULL-able ApplicationID

A different architecture enables using global Roles that have no ApplicationID, and local Roles that have it. Each application is set to use both sets of Roles, allowing flexibility and understandability. But this model has a problem as well - we can't prevent an application from seeing a global Role - those are intended for everybody, which means that in the long run, the system would start gravitating towards not having any global roles at all, to assure flexibility. To simplify - this architecture is great, but needs something that takes care of Denying.

ApplicationID	RoleID (PK)	Role
NULL	1	Administrator
NULL	2	Moderator
2	3	News editor

5. a) Creating a table for Deny

Let's put another application (ApplicationID = 3) into the equation, which, for some reason, doesn't want to have the global Role named Moderator (RoleID = 2). Adding another table to care of Denied Roles would solve the problem perfectly, but do we really need another table? We want to keep our database with as little tables as possible, so it's easier to use. That's why we should consider extending the Roles table to handle denying as well.

ApplicationID	RoleID (PK)	Role
NULL	1	Administrator
NULL	2	Moderator
2	3	News editor

ApplicationID (PK)	DeniedRoleID (PK)
3	2

5. b) Adding two fields for Deny

In the most normalized way, we need two fields to take care of Deny - a boolean to mark we are working with a Deny record type, and an integer to tell which record we are denying. But what if we want to optimize even further?

ApplicationID	RoleID (PK)	Role	IsDenied	DeniedRoleID
NULL	1	Administrator	false	NULL
NULL	2	Moderator	false	NULL
2	3	News editor	false	NULL
3	4	NULL	true	2

5. c) Using an existing field for Deny

We could put information about which record we are denying into the existing Roles.Role field, since we don't really need it in these cases. But there's a major setback; if a non-numeric field would be accidentally stored in the denied Role, the SQL engine would throw an error.

ApplicationID	RoleID (PK)	Role	IsDenied
NULL	1	Administrator	false
NULL	2	Moderator	false
2	3	News editor	false
3	4	2	true

5. d) Using a single field for Deny

It's much easier to combine the first two fields into one, marking the record implicitly. If the DeniedID is NULL, it means we are working with a regular record, otherwise, we are dealing with a denying record. Information about which Role we are denying is stored in the same field, which works both as a boolean, as an integer.

ApplicationID	RoleID (PK)	Role	DeniedRoleID
NULL	1	Administrator	NULL
NULL	2	Moderator	NULL
2	3	News editor	NULL
3	4	NULL	2

The decision

The last architecture (5. d) is the one I think it's best. It's very transparent and flexible, and it has only one major problem I can currently think of; if only a few (of many) applications would require to share a Role, this wouldn't be possible to solve with this model, but I can live with that.

ApplicationID	RoleID (PK)	Role	DeniedRoleID
NULL	1	Administrator	NULL
NULL	2	Moderator	NULL
2	3	News editor	NULL
3	4	NULL	2

The SQL statement

I have played around a bit with the 5. d) and it works very well. Here's the SELECT statement that retrieves the records for each specific application, supporting the mentioned scenarios.

SELECT Roles.*
FROM Roles
WHERE
(Roles.ApplicationID = 3 OR Roles.ApplicationID IS NULL) --retrieve local and global roles
AND
Roles.DeniedRoleID IS NULL --use only regular records
AND
Roles.RoleID NOT IN --remove denied roles
(
SELECT DeniedRoles.DeniedRoleID FROM Roles AS DeniedRoles
WHERE DeniedRoles.ApplicationID = 3
AND DeniedRoles.DeniedRoleID IS NOT NULL
)

The same query, solved with a JOIN instead of WHERE IN, which is faster, but probably less understandable.

SELECT RealRoles.*
FROM Roles AS RealRoles --regular records
LEFT OUTER JOIN
Roles AS DeniedRoles --denying records
ON RealRoles.RoleID = DeniedRoles.DeniedRoleID --join by the ID of the role
AND RealRoles.DeniedRoleID IS NULL --but only those records that are real
AND DeniedRoles.DeniedRoleID IS NOT NULL --vs those that are denying
AND DeniedRoles.ApplicationID = 3
WHERE
(RealRoles.ApplicationID = 3 OR RealRoles.ApplicationID IS NULL) --retrieve my and global roles
AND
RealRoles.DeniedRoleID IS NULL -- take all regular roles
AND
DeniedRoles.RoleID IS NULL --that don't have a deny

Conclusion

There are many ways to solve a database model in a SaaS architecture, but because of many reasons, we've decided to use a single database with an additional foreign key that defines the client in all the required tables. One of the biggest concerns in this architecture is solving global and local records, but the model presented here takes care of most requirements a typical Saas system might stumble upon, by using a NULL-able ApplicationID, with another field to take care of exceptions that require denying.

This architecture solves most of the problems, and if you're leaning towards a single database architecture, it's probably the best way to go.

Swayzak – Devil of Rotations

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:17:04 GMT

Ocean's Thirteen

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:14:06 GMT

3 stars

At least we have the Discovery channel

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:14:05 GMT

I think television is bad. Besides making you a brainless zombie, watching without thinking, it channels all the bad things on this world into the little box in the living room. Of course, there are also positive broadcasts, but they are still heavily overwhelmed by the negative. The news brings mostly bad news, making mass paranoia and hysteria. Reality shows are making the youth confused and are building a wannabe society. Sure, there are a few interesting series going on, a few good movies, but otherwise, it sucks. Thank god for the Discovery channel.

The Discovery channel is one of the most interesting channels we get. The way I see it, the whole watchability stands on two different concepts of shows, clothed into numerous different versions. The real-work reality shows (not to be confused with "reality" reality shows, such as Big brother) and the pop-science shows. We have the Discovery channel (probably) East Europe, so this post may not be up-to-date with the US or European versions, but here are the shows that are cool.

The real-work reality shows are actually reality show in the most literal meaning of the word. They cover real people, doing real jobs, without (m)any scripts or scenarios. Those that are worth mentioning are American Chopper (a dad an two sons building motorbikes and having a spicy relationship and vocabulary), The Deadliest Catch (Alaska fisherman hunting crabs in hellish environment), Ultimate Survival (someone named Bear going through different uninhabited regions and eating bugs) and Dirty Jobs (a guy trying out how hard and dirty some jobs are).

The pop-science shows bring an interesting overview on how things are made, how they work and what they are. The Mythbusters are the best in this category (two geeky guys making weird experiments), their English almost copy Brainiac, Time Warp (recordings of things using a high-speed camera), a few different shows on how things are constructed (How It's Made, How Things Work, etc.), and a ton of documentary shows on construction, cars and technology (Mega Builders, Built From Disaster, etc.).

In some cases there's a thin line between the categories, and I think the best ones are actually those that are able to combine the concepts of both. These shows are at the same time working well on our curiosity, but still keep a contact with our social senses and humanity.

There's an honorable mention, a show that we don't get anymore, which is a bit sad, because it was really cool. Scrapheap challenge, or in it's worse US edition, The junkyard wars. It's about two teams, who have one day to build something using just materials from a junkyard.

There you have it. A solid proof that Discovery channel is one of the best TV channels around. It's fun and it educates at the same time. So kids, don't watch MTV, it just makes you feel bad.

Evolution of men and its representation in James Bond movies

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:11:18 GMT

If you didn’t notice, things have changed quite a lot in the past 50 years. The perception of the world changed and so did the people. One species that went through extremely significant metamorphosis is the human male. Once strong, rough and commanding, now cute, femininine and emotional. A term used more and more often for urban men is metrosexual, representing someone that looks a bit gay even though he is heterosexual, taking care of his looks and appearance.

The mass media and pop culture have been giving people representations of stereotypes since the dawn of television. People have been giving it back. It doesn’t matter who was more influential, the fact is that this evolution of society has been documented and can now be studied. In our case we will focus on a figure of a man. To make things easier, pop culture brought up a perfect case study, represented in a series of films about one perfect alpha male, detective James Bond.

Since Dr. No was filmed in 1962, the mentioned 50 years passed. In more than 20 films, James Bond was portrayed by different actors representing different ages. If you compare all the different looks and different behaviors of actors representing the same character, you can perhaps get a clearer picture on how the society of each time was perceiving a perfect male. Amongst other things, James Bond definitely got less hairy and more buff. You could say he’s not that handsome anymore, now he’s a bit beautiful.

Comparing Sean Connery and Daniel Craig we can wonder in which novel James Bond actually thought about shaving his armpits and waxing his chest. We can also wonder in which novel he’ll start to pluck his eyebrows and wear a bit of mascara. Perhaps he and his Bond girl can then do it while they are getting their legs waxed. It may seem far fetched, but cultural changes between consecutive Bonds are massive, so don’t get surprised when something like that happens.

Another important thing occurred in this feminization process - James Bond became a bit less charming. The old school acts and seduction methods the original used have been replaced by modern ones, quite boring and lame. A simple task of ordering a drink could once be made legendary, but now such things are loosing it’s appeal and look weird. Today it’s more important which telephone someone has and which brands he wears, because wits are not that appreciated anymore. All in accordance with the figure of a modern male, looking good with not much smart to say.

The way the future man will look is probably up to the women and their expectation of men. This will probably manifest in the form of which pop star they will idolize the most. Seeing the hysteria over that vampire guy, it looks like it’s futile to resist. The ultimate question, is James Bond imitating a stereotypical cool guy or is a stereotypical cool guy imitating James Bond was probably answered with that thought, so I might as well go put on some hair conditioner.

Gašper Kozak: Wide Thoughts

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:35:41 GMT

a blog of one of those … software developer creatures

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:48:22 GMT

Bizzare movie, but the ladies will surely enjoy it.
3 1/2 stars

The Wombats – Tokyo (Vampires & Wolves)

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:43:38 GMT

Real Steel

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:42:15 GMT

4 stars
Loving the robot, loving the game.

The Silicon Valley tour, part 2: vox.io's San Francisco HQ aka the Slovenian hall of tech

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 03:19:06 GMT

There's this very cool place in San Francisco, a place where I'm staying while I'm on my Silicon Valley tour. vox.io's Bay Area headquarters, where not only people from Slovenia, but also from a few other countries currently live, work and play. This giant loft now gathers individuals from technology startups into a giant hub of solutions, people and ideas. Filled with hopes and expectations, this is definitely something I'm proud to be a part of.

There are currently 8 people living here, from vox.io, Zemanta, Oust.me, the Austrian startup blossom and me, representing Twenity and Neolab. A pretty wicked bunch of people having both productive and fun sessions.

The place is huge, with a giant living room, kitchen, dining area, working tables everywhere, and a very cool chill-out zone on what used to be a stage. There's a separate bar and a DJ area, besides a few rooms for sleeping. An awesome hackspace, probably few times better than my flat.

I can't describe how important this place is. Besides giving me and others shelter, the opportunity to hang out here and share knowledge and ideas with other people from the industry is crucial, I've learned so much in a few days, it's unbelievable.

These kinds of things should be subsidized by the government. In our case, vox.io is doing more for the Slovenian technology startup scene than most other public projects are, for a much smaller investment. By allowing people to be here in Silicon Valley, trying to find investors, exploring new ways of doing business, or just learning about the culture around here, the reach of Slovenian startups has widened by miles. All thanks to a few individuals with great ideas.

A huge living room, the center of our everyday lives

The kitchen and the dining area

The chill-out zone, where you can work or relax

The bar and DJ area

Highlight from the Slovenian party, to which we've invited everybody from Slovenia that lives around here

Check out the complete The Silicon Valley tour series.

The Chemical Brothers – Swoon

Mon, 28 May 2012 17:22:07 GMT

The final destination, part 1: technologies and concepts enterprise IT will have to adopt

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:38:09 GMT

In the past years, we've witnessed a very important transformation: the consumerization of information technologies. Billions of connected users living their life online, overwhelmed by millions of information systems that have been tailored to suit their every need and desire. Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon came a long way with their products and infrastructure, but the enterprise isn't losing any time. Learning from the new paradigms and adopting new funky technologies, that have traditionally been developed in corporate laboratories. Can the Fab 4 also predict where enterprise IT is headed? And what will it become?

A few weeks ago I participated in a panel for PI-PL on Ljubljana's Faculty of Economics, where I was asked this exact question: where do I see corporate IT in 10 years. A very hard question indeed, but the more I thought about the it, the clearer it became. Enterprise data, software and technology will sooner or later integrate everything. Simple as that. But to fully understand how this will happen, we must first try to identify the most important trends that have shaped information technologies as we know them today. Yes, most of them don't have that much to do with the enterprise. But things are changing.

Cloud technologies

While cloud computing may have been present in the enterprise for quite some time, it's still pretty much dominated by web players like Google (mail, docs, etc.) and Amazon (hardware), who are also flirting with the enterprise. Who wouldn't? There are massive benefits for businesses to move their stuff to the cloud, from scalable physical Infrastructure to higher level Platform or Software as a service information systems.

Perhaps the most important thing the Cloud achieved was to render technology infrastructure irrelevant. It doesn't matter any more, what kind of environment you use. What type of security, infrastructure, servers and network you have installed. You can outsource these things to others, and it will be much easier and cheaper, while all your migrating-to-a-bigger-thing problems will be solved with a swipe of a credit card. I was fascinated that Microsoft now offers Linux based servers on their Azure cloud services, which can be changed to Windows with a click of a button. Architecture doesn't matter anymore, and this fact helps IT departments to focus on more important things than system administration.

APIs, mashups, platforms and ecosystems

Heavily connected with the whole Cloud concept, data and information never had it easier to travel from one place to another. System migrations (moving data from one information system to another) and system integrations (connecting multiple information systems into one) have always been one of the biggest challenges of IT. But the web didn't have as much resources as the enterprise, so it had to simplify things. By offering APIs (Application Programming Interface), web applications allowed others applications to work with their data in an easy way. Mashups, hybrid information systems built on top of others, were born.

Pretty much every noteworthy web service has its own API. This helped a lot of them to become a platform. You know, like Facebook and Twitter, who have created an ecosystem, where thousands of other applications live around them? Soon, similar concepts will dominate the enterprise too. There are already players like Salesforce, who not only offer business-oriented Software as a service solutions, but the also a Platform for other developers to build services on top of their services. And since everything is so open, all this data can easily be integrated with other information systems or transferred to a different environment. Modern information systems don't have problems with understanding each other, but IT departments have problems with understanding information systems, since different, more business oriented skills are needed to support these integrations.

Mobile devices and new distribution channels

More than ten years ago, when I was an Information Sciences student, there was still a debate going on about the benefits of web based enterprise information systems over traditional Client - Server architecture. In the end, the Web won, mostly because distribution was so easy, you make the update on the server, and every user gets it instantly. Employees need nothing but a browser. They are acquainted with the environment ever since they started using Hotmail, and took it for their own ever since they started using Facebook.

But today, it seems the Web is losing its ground as the leading infrastructure, since a new technology came into town. Capable mobile devices, like smartphones and tablets, now enable access to information systems from anywhere, anytime in real-time. Besides, they arrived with their own app markets, which enabled a whole potential for software distribution, and perhaps more importantly, for software billing. You give a fair share to the store owner, who also promotes your solution, and you can freely focus on developing and marketing the product. It's true that mobile apps may not be as flexible as web applications, since the users need to install the updates (even though this can also be achieved by combining native mobile and hosted HTML 5), but the trend is clear. Apple already has its Mac store, Microsoft Windows will follow soon. Distribution of mobile and Software as a service information systems is becoming trivial.

Big data and The internet of things

Traditionally, banks, retailers and financial institutions have been the organizations that operated with the most data in the world. Well, things are changing, and we can only wonder who owns the most bytes today: is it Google, Facebook or someone else? Since there are less transactions than there are interactions, we can estimate consumer oriented information systems with billions of users are the biggest in existence. While this data is accessible to the enterprise to some extent, there are also hundreds of other systems the enterprise or its employees use, and they all create massive amounts of data and information, which needs to be integrated into a wider picture.

Not only that. Today, there are already are more connected devices that we have initially anticipated. These devices (cameras, sensors, tools, etc.) create even more data, which the enterprise needs to process. This trend of wired gadgets is called The internet of things, and together with the large amount of interconnectable information systems businesses use, points to one important trend: the typical enterprise was never faced with so much data and information, which somehow needs to be integrated and understood in an interdisciplinary way.

New ways of doing things, on a higher level

In the mean time, these consumer oriented (B2C) web corporation not only became a few of the biggest technology companies in existence, they've also invented new ways of how to get things done. From Google's 20%, to flat organizations without management, more and more companies (not only startups) set out to revolutionize how business is done. In the service oriented society, creativity is important, but so is productivity and the ability to ship fast. Done is better than perfect.

With new types of management concepts, such as lean and agile, modern organizations are becoming more and more flexible. Not only in doing things, but also in switching from one technology to another. These companies have developed their own way of thinking about which software to use. And it probably has a lot to do its price, how fast can you start using it, how scalable and connectable it is, and how fast can you dump if for another. IT requirements are moving to a higher level, and information systems have become just pieces of a puzzle that needs to be completed.

Design and user experience

Design and user experience probably still don't have that much to do with enterprise IT, but they are very much worth mentioning nevertheless. Face it, users are becoming more and more demanding, and software developers need to make better and better software. Even though the above mentioned facts are probably the dominating factor for the choice of which information systems the enterprise will use, design and user experience matter more and more.

Businesses have always had problems with implementing new software, educating the users, going through the whole status quo change. But beautiful and useful software penetrates faster. People perceive beautiful things to be more useful, and it's the whole intuitiveness and usability of software that helps them adopt something without too much resistance and problems. Some software vendors already found out user experience is the new competitive advantage, and in the end it may be the thing that tips the scale. But the whole point behind it is that I can see better, more clever and detailed, information systems force out older ones on an even faster pace. The whole world of information systems need reinvention, and user experience design will be the science behind these upgrades. Benefits are becoming more important than features.

Social, crowdsourcing and gamification

More than 3 years ago, I was very excited to present a concept we have been developing in Neolab on Days of Slovenian IT. I called it IT 2.0, since it meant integrating social services into enterprise software (at that time, Enterprise 2.0 was more widely used for stand-alone social software such as wikis or corporate blogs). The truth is, I didn't get the chance to sell it well, and in the mean time, disruptive social services managed to fully find their way into the enterprise. But business won't stop here; there are many other fascinating things the internet has invented that can fully be applied to corporate environments.

Gamification, the art of using gaming mechanics in non gaming environments, is getting more and more claim beyond the web. Both for motivating employees, as for motivating clients. We all like to play, so why should work be any different? And we all like to participate in something bigger, that is why crowdsourcing, where people coproduce something, can bring such exciting results. Can you see where I'm headed?

We are all human, and in the end, behaving on a very basic level. Sometimes we perform better, sometimes worse, and we all hold hidden potential even ourselves aren't aware of. That is what software in the workplace can sometimes help us discover, and it's something more and more businesses are aware of. Social, gamification and crowdsourcing are only a few approaches that can make us feel better and more motivated, and they are all concepts that enterprise IT will adopt sooner or later. Behind every company, there are only people.

The final destination of enterprise IT

These are the concepts and technologies that will shape enterprise IT of tomorrow. And with it, new challenges will emerge, together with new profiles of people, who will understand and use all of the above. These profiles, such as data scientists and business analysts, will help enterprise IT do what it was destined to do: Integrate life, the universe and everything.

But that's another story. Coming up soon.

Check out the complete The final destination series.

Once Brothers

Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:42:42 GMT

5 stars
Amazing story about Yugoslavian basketball.

Razturamo ^_^ https://t.co/TbhS6NT56d

Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:47:55 GMT

Understanding Customer Acquisition Costs

Sun, 20 Sep 2015 19:55:57 GMT

Digitalna transformacija in nove arhutekture aplikacij. @matjazbj #srckonferenca http://t.co/a6urxCLG3a

Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:40:19 GMT

Facebook notifications are getting irrelevant #spam #fb

Wed, 07 Oct 2015 07:33:03 GMT

All of the 007 Gun Barrel Logos at Once

Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:19:05 GMT

Kdo poleg @Podcrto in @delo data še ukvarja z javnimi finanačnimi podatki in raziskovalnim novinarstvom? Hvala za RT. #supervizor

Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:58:37 GMT

Moving to a Software Subscription Model

Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:36:08 GMT

@AndrazLogar ce skoz drkas, itak vsak telefon crkne po parih urah. Ista izkusnja z iphoneom pred nekaj meseci.

Sat, 28 Nov 2015 15:50:40 GMT

Microsoft Windows usage statistics over the years

Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:12:21 GMT

The 10 most cringeworthy advertising fails of 2015

Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:44:48 GMT

[Blog] Twitter beyond 140 characters - it could work https://t.co/1cM5S9OGnb #twitter $twtr #socialmedia

Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:55:25 GMT

10 Creative Tweets That Will Make You Rethink Twitter

Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:30:19 GMT

RT @papsl: How to add a number to another number in JavaScript? :) #javascript https://t.co/PNlW4ENRWv

Fri, 05 Feb 2016 18:06:54 GMT

Twitter beyond 140 characters

Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:20:41 GMT

Twitter is in big trouble. The user growth has stopped and the world is waiting to see if Jack Dorsey can turn things around. One of the latest rumors is that Twitter will soon resort to one of its biggest gambles yet, and remove its signature 140-character limit, which has always been of the key differentiators of the service. Can this be true? Does this even make sense?

Let's start at the beginning. In my opinion, Twitter’s two main competitive advantages (compared to Facebook) are:

real time stream, which means relevancy. I’m not saying it's better than Facebook’s filtered stream, but it certainly delivers a different way of consuming content.
density of information, resulting from the above-mentioned limit, which means speed. This, again, makes a big difference in examining information, compared to similar services.

The combination of the two is what makes Twitter Twitter. At first glance, it seems increasing the tweet limit to 10,000 characters would totally mess up this user experience. But this doesn’t need to be the case, if the expansion is done properly. Actually, people have already been adding more characters to tweets by embedding print screens of quotes or articles as pictures. Why should additional tweet text be any different? The solution is simple, this upgrade has to be in the form of a text attachment.

A simple workaround of adding text as a picture that everybody's been using.

A link uses 23 characters of a tweet. A picture takes 24, the same goes for a poll or a quoted tweet. This logic could be applied to "extended tweets" as well, and as since I'm a big fan of Twitter, I'm truly hoping this is the way Jack will go. Information on the web always comes in multiple components. Google use titles and (meta) descriptions in search results, emails have a subject and a body, Facebook embedded links use a similar information structure, ditto for articles on news sites, etc. This actually makes sense. The microblog becomes the blog, if required, and everybody's happy.

A simple solution that solves a lot of problems and doesn't change the core user experience.

But if I’m wrong and actual tweets will support 10,000 characters in a single text field, Twitter is probably done for it. Removing this character limit feature will simply make the service too generic and not useful for many cases it is used for at this point. Lately, a lot of power users have already left Twitter, and if the rest of them leave as well, there won’t be any good reasons for new users to come in the first place.

UPDATE (23.2.2016): Awkward... It seems Twitter's Jack Dorsey has been talking about the same thing a few weeks before this post, which I somehow missed.

Slovenia vs. Slovakia - a (football) match made in heaven

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:57:58 GMT

Slovenia and Slovakia share a common problem. They are both victims of identity theft, because they, well, they look the same. They have a similar name, they have a similar national flag, they even have a similar post socialistic "my previous country is now ten countries" story. Luckily, they also share a similar newly appointed capitalistic EU success. Slovenia and Slovakia are the first two transitional countries to enter the European monetary union. We did it two years before. And we won the football match yesterday.

As a part of qualifications for the world cup 2010, a football match happened in Bratislava, Slovakia, between Slovenia and Slovakia. Some foreigners who were watching it, probably thought "what's wrong with these guys, why is a country competing against itself?". Because it's two countries, you idiot. Slovenia, Slovakia, don't you see the difference between an "n" and a "k"? Well, no. The truth is, that's understandable, Slovenia and Slovakia look the same. Or is it Slovekia and Slovania?

George W. Bush confused Slovenia and Slovakia once. Other great performances include playing the wrong anthem on political and sport events. Awkward and embarassing indeed.

The story of a country, trying not to be another country, is a bit sad. It influences people, identity and patriotism. Almost everybody I know feels this itch in the back of our country's recognition and branding in the global society. But it's too late (and not acceptable) to change the name or at least the national flag after so many years. Therefore we have nothing left but to make the most out of it. I wonder how Slovaks feel about it.

This unique situation could actually become a competitive advantage for both countries. Hey, we are the only two countries in the world that look the same. Who cares about the other 200 countries, they actually resemble each other even more - none of them have another country that's the same as theirs. Perhaps we are even some lost cousins that went separate ways sometime in history and will be reunited one day as the first same double country in Europe. Infinite possibilities.

After these thoughts I feel better and a bit proud to be a part of this funny situation. Go Slovakia (as long as it's not football)!

An approach to statistics and data analysis

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:32:06 GMT

When information systems evolve, they become greedier for both operational and advanced strategic statistics and data analysis. This need is a part of a natural evolution. The more data you have, the higher potential for extracting information you have. Looking at business environments using IT platforms, that's what analytics are actually all about - getting useful information from usually bad data. It turns out the task of analytical reporting is not so complex as it seems, but you definitely need a set of different skills / people to make it work.

There are tons of different statistical approaches, methods and theories, but it turns out that for average business needs you only need basic mathematics, where the most complex operations are sometimes logarithms. So, if it's so simple, where does the problem lay? Why do information systems often lack analytical support, which can be used for decision making?

In my opinion there are three main steps to consider when trying to make useful statistics and data analysis, and ignoring or underestimating any one of them will make your reports suck.

Data

Data is the king. If you don't have the data, you might as well give it up. If your data is bad or weak, you might consider rebuilding it. But you should know one thing - the better the structure of your data is, the better your analysis will be. Using a flat database such as a text file or an Excel spreadsheet gives you few analytical opportunities. Relational databases, such as Access, MySQL or SQL offer cross-data querying and advanced reporting, but huge and complex calculations can take a lot of time. For those, a multidimensional OLAP database designed strictly for analysis becomes the only option.

Challenges in this step: Technical

Information

The data discussed above defines the scope of potential information you can deliver. In this step, the main goal is simple - you need to know what you want to know. Business needs, process flow, strategic goals or just plain simple amusement are the main factors that need to be addressed. Having someone who is able to recognize these opportunities is crucial, because data is just numbers, but aggregated data - information - is knowledge. It's quite clear you won't be able to get something if you don't know what you want to get.

Challenges in this step: Analytical

Visualization

A picture can tell a thousand words and this goes a long way for data visualization. Even if you can't use charts, you can color information and use measures such as font size to represent another dimension of information or trends. Besides, always keep in mind that less is more, so you should put irrelevant information in the background and punchlines in the spotlight. Check out different chart types, they're useful for different representations and experimenting with them can display things that don't seem there at first sight. Observe patterns. Try to imagine a playground, where information can satisfy your curiosity and while doing it, it also brings useful and valuable results.

Challenges in this step: Creative

If you have the will, you can do all sorts of crazy stuff with statistics and data analysis, but you should know they sometimes take a lot of time. I'm proud my chronolog already has two nice looking children of these activities. The first one is a simple recommendation engine used for content ranking and the other one a set of reports which offer insight into activity and interactions of the chronolog. What can I say, I like to play around, and it may as well be any information system I can get my hands on. Give me the data and I'll give you information.

Facebook vs. Twitter - Part 2: Privacy and real-time web

Thu, 13 May 2010 17:11:14 GMT

After my previous post comparing Facebook and Twitter I received a few comments about how Facebook and Twitter are two totally different services which can't really be compared. I admit they are not perfectly analog, but my thoughts originate mainly from the fact that these two players will probably be those who'll define how the social web of tomorrow will look, from the point of user experience as well as an organizational and marketing tool. Where Google dominates Web 1.0, Facebook and Twitter are obviously becoming the leaders of Web 2.0, and the fact is any of them (including Google) has a good chance to define Web 3.0.

What's new

The past few weeks have been pretty intense for Facebook and Twitter. The two Web 2.0 rivals both held conferences about how their companies are doing and revealing plans for the future. Facebook's (f8) main presented functionality was the universal Like button, which was already adopted by more than 50.000 websites in its first week, even though with a bit of problems. Twitter (Chirp) announced its service has more users than expected (105m registered, 180m unique users a month) and their main focus in the future will be Twitter Annotations, used for making Tweets embedded with meta-data used for better indexing and search. These two features imply that one of the main battlefields of the future of web will surely be the semantic web, for which experts say at this point Facebook has the advantage.

Real-time web

Leaving aside speculations about where this whole story is headed and how the semantic web will turn out, and concentrate on another thing hot right now: real-time web. Real-time web has so much potential even Google wanted a part of it. Sadly, Buzz came out a bit of a failure, and most of it's traffic is non-generated. The giant probably doesn't really care because it can display Tweets and other streams in it's search results, finding a symbiosis with real-time web services, similar as it has with Wikipedia. But still, it's "new" Buzz service proves that real-time web is interesting for everybody, even the biggest web company in the world.

The main point of real-time web is already hidden in its name. It's about information when it happens. News portals and blogs are minutes if not hours behind, after all, they usually present professional and lectured articles with sources and photographies. But in this hectic and hyper-speed world we live in, information has the highest value when it happens. In the case of extraordinary and unpredictable events, such as natural and man-made disasters, or just casual popular things, such as the premiere of a new movie, timing means everything. That is why journalists turn to these sources more and more, and CNN occasionally analyzes the twittersphere live on television, taking advantage of these new modern media platforms. They actually deserve to be congratulated for seizing this great opportunity.

Privacy issues

Where does Facebook fit into this picture? Well, to be honest, I think it's still trying to fit in it, and that's what the whole "Privacy and real-time web" in this post title is all about. To understand what I'm getting at, we must go a few years back, back to Facebook's beginnings. Facebook started as a closed network for elite schools, then slowly opening up to general public to become one of the biggest websites ever. The service and concept was originally based around privacy – where everything you did you had a full control over who will see it, what probably made it big in the first place. Today, this privacy is almost gone, and even Mark Zuckerberg admitted it doesn't interest them any more.

This decline of Facebook's privacy is concerning many people right now, and you can check out this interesting evolution for yourself (also visualized). Activism and search for alternatives have already made it to the mainstream and it looks like I'm becoming a part of this movement too. Don't get me wrong, I still think Facebook is a great service both for personal and professional life, but sometimes you just have to not want it all (sounds familiar?). It's a bit ironic actually, the thing which made Facebook could also become its end.

In the case of content providing, real-time web and search, for which Facebook perhaps also has ambitions, privacy is a giant barrier. Facebook has content, not only that, it has the most content of them all (including multimedia), but this valuable content is entangled inside Facebook's huge web of (dissolving) privacy, making most of the streams unreachable for general public. Even Facebook Pages, designed to have their information fully open to public, were not helping a lot, because it's the the millions of microbloggers, from the most influential, to the most insignificant, who are empowering the real-time web, and not brands and corporations. Real-time web is a giant crowdsourced news network with reporters scattered all around the world, and that is something Facebook so desperatly wants to be a part of, using all means necessary.

Twitter is the king

We will see if Facebook went too far or will it be able to become a real player in real-time web too. For now, Twitter seems to be the dominant platform and the fact that it's entire timeline will be archived in the Library of Congress is an amazing achievement proving this theory. Facebook's only option to make it on this market is to continue getting rid of privacy, making it's content available for everybody, both human and machine. Of course, there will be other players too and uncle Google will sit right on top of it, trying to use all the platforms and services to its own benefit.

Number of users is the crucial component of real-time web, so Facebook could probably have a greater potential in this field in the long run too. But the truth is Facebook users are becoming annoyed, and it's still a question how they'll accept its new strategic policy and how intimidated they will become by its frequent debacles. But the attachment to Facebook can sometimes be too heavy, so it will be interesting to see if users will actually leave Facebook or simply adapt to its new privacy, continuing to feed it with accessible real-time content.

If the future is semantic web, reality is real-time web, and at this point Twitter is very much in the lead. In the end, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference for a casual user if he gets the information late, but still, the whole concept of real-time web is quite amazing and holds great potential for many people and businesses. An interesting thing, the World Wide Web is, and everything that came with it. Welcome to 2010.

Check out the complete Facebook vs. Twitter series.

Twitfluence application basic technical specifications

Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:53:43 GMT

Twitfluence is a registered Twitter application for calculating the "weight" and influence of your Twitter account, and is already accessible for beta users. It uses read and write permissions on your Twitter account. ~~Perhaps it will be upgraded with write permissions one day too, so it will be able to post the results to your timeline on request, but for now, read permission is all it needs~~. The original idea was to have it done without Twitter authentication (by simply entering a user name), but then you're not able to access mentions and retweets, which are obviously a big thing in measuring someone's Twitter influence.

The data

At this stage, the Twitfluence calculation uses and stores the following information for it's calculation. None of your personal data, your authentication info and your tweets are stored, so you need to approve it each time you do the calculation. Here is the full list of the parameters captured:

You
- How many people you follow
- How many people follow you
- How many days you are on Twitter
- How many Tweets you've made
One month of tweets
- How many Tweets you've made
- How many mentions and replies you’ve made
- How many retweets you’ve made
- How many times you were mentioned and replied to
- How many times you were retweeted
- What was the reach of you being mentions and replied to
- What was the reach of your tweets retweeted
Lists
- How many list you appear on
- How many people these list follow
- How many people follow these lists
- How many people follow the people on whose lists you appear
- How many lists you own
- How many people follow your lists
Other
- Your screen name
- Your profile picture
- Your description
- Your timezone for comparison to nearby users

API calls

Twitfluence calculation makes 6 API calls to capture the data mentioned. Here is the full list of the requests:

http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/user_timeline.xml: your tweets
http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/retweeted_by_me.xml: you retweets
http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/mentions.xml: you being mentioned
http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/retweets_of_me.xml: you being retweeted
http://api.twitter.com/1/screenname/lists.xml: list you own
http://api.twitter.com/1/screenname/lists/memberships.xml: list you appear on

Retweets

Twitter allows different clients (web, mobile clients,…), and some of them make retweets in a technically different way that the core Twitter web client. Therefore retweets are scattered inside retweets and mentions, but the Twitfluence application is smart enough to recognize them. The following tweets are consider retweets, and the calculation uses retweets in a different way than mentions and replies:

actual retweets
mentions that contain the syntax "RT @"
mentions that contain the syntax "via @"

Reach

There are a few parameters inside the calculation that use the "reach" of tweets (retweets, mentions, lists). You should know that this is not the actual real reach (potential unique users) of your tweets without duplicates, but a simple addition of the followers for the specific case. Therefore the score from reach may not be perfectly correct, but at this point it will have to do.

Links

Clicking on links published on Twitter is currently not a part of the calculation. Measuring clicks can be a bit difficult, specially if the links point directly to the website (compared to using URL shorteners, which offer analysis of clicks). Hopefully I will be able to use links in Twitfluence as well someday, in a way that's proper and objective for most users, but for now they'll be ignored.

This is the basic technical specification of the Twitfluence application. In case your curious about the mathematical algorithm behind it and how the calculation works, you can visit the following post, but otherwise, feel free to leave a comment or suggestion. I want to make the calculation as correct as possible, so any feedback of yours would really be appreciated.