Alexis C. Madrigal

Alexis Madrigal is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees the Technology channel. He's the author of Powering the Dream: The History and Promise of Green Technology. More

The New York Observer calls Madrigal "for all intents and purposes, the perfect modern reporter." He co-founded Longshot magazine, a high-speed media experiment that garnered attention from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the BBC. While at Wired.com, he built Wired Science into one of the most popular blogs in the world. The site was nominated for best magazine blog by the MPA and best science Web site in the 2009 Webby Awards. He also co-founded Haiti ReWired, a groundbreaking community dedicated to the discussion of technology, infrastructure, and the future of Haiti.

He's spoken at Stanford, CalTech, Berkeley, SXSW, E3, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and his writing was anthologized in Best Technology Writing 2010 (Yale University Press).

Madrigal is a visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley's Office for the History of Science and Technology. Born in Mexico City, he grew up in the exurbs north of Portland, Oregon, and now lives in Oakland.

Best of the Web

Open Internet Advocates Dismayed With Google

DOE Chief Chu Adds Political Muscle with New Advisory Board

Chu.jpg

Steve Chu has a new set of advisors, the Department of Energy announced today. The twelve-member board is surprisingly old-guard for a DOE chief from outside the Beltway.

These are insiders who know how to fight in Washington's trenches. They are not Silicon Valley. They are not really innovators, aside from Art Rosenfeld and Nick Donofrio. Energy may be an avocation for many on the list, but few have dedicated their lives to the field.

A couple of examples to make the point: John Deutch advised Jimmy Carter on energy, then went on to helm the CIA under Bill Clinton. William Perry served as Secretary of Defense in the 1990s and is affiliated with the Hoover Institution. Norm Augustine was the CEO of Lockheed Martin, an under secretary for the Army, and chaired a controversial panel on NASA's future last year. If Augustine were a Pulp Fiction character, he would be The Wolf (Harvey Keitel), the mob fixer brought in to clean up messes.

Here is the full Secretary of Energy Advisory Board:

  • Norman Augustine, Former Chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin
  • Ralph Cicerone, President of National Academy of Sciences
  • John Deutch, MIT Chemist, Former Under Secretary of Energy
  • Nicholas Donofrio, Former EVP of Innovation and Technology, IBM
  • Alexis Herman, Former Secretary of Labor
  • Chad Holliday, Jr., Former CEO of Dupont
  • Michael McQuade, Senior VP, United Technologies Corporation
  • William Perry, Former Secretary of Defense, Stanford University Professor
  • Arthur Rosenfeld, Former Commissioner, California Energy Commission
  • Susan Tierney, Managing Principle, Analysis Group
  • Steven Westly, Managing Partner, Westly Group
  • Daniel Yergin, President, Cambridge Energy Research Associates

Nominally, the group will "provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on the Department's basic and applied research, economic and national security policy, educational issues, [and] operational issues."

But looking over this list, it seems obvious that Secretary Chu is gearing up for a new political battle and realized that he needed a little more Beltway muscle.

Image: Department of Energy.

Best of the Web

Climate Change Is Not a Problem 'Environmentalism' Can Solve

Best of the Web

The National Archives Treasure Hunters

Best of the Web

Facebook Is Not a Good Political Organizing Platform

Google and Verizon Want to Redefine the Internet

Google and Verizon proposed a new regulatory framework that they say could calm the heated network neutrality debate.

The idea that the network of networks we call the Internet should be open, so that data can flow unfettered from any node to any other node is part of the mythology and operation of the current system. But companies build and own those networks. Their corporate missions -- capturing maximum profit from investment in infrastructure -- don't include openness.

As you might expect, people who use the network (big Internet companies) have tended to favor net neutrality, while the people who build and operate the network (broadband providers) have opposed it.

That's what makes the Google-Verizon proposal interesting. It's a compromise between traditional adversaries, but from what we can tell from its brief two pages, it doesn't seem likely to make net neutrality advocates happy.

First, Google and Verizon separate wireless from wireline networks. On the former, net neutrality would not have to apply. Wireless bandwidth providers would only have to provide "transparency," so that we can all see if AT&T has cut a deal with a particular content provider.

"Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time," the companies wrote.

It's hard to see how that squares exactly with the opening statement of principle that began Google's blog post on the subject. "The original architects of the Internet got the big things right. By making the network open, they enabled the greatest exchange of ideas in history," the companies wrote in a post on Google's blog. "By making the Internet scalable, they enabled explosive innovation in the infrastructure."

If open networks are good, why should wireless be different? They don't make the case in these documents for why the "unique technical and operational characteristics" should change the fundamental underlying principle of the network. That's not to say there isn't a good argument, but it's certainly not in either the blog post or the policy document.

More troubling is that the language of the wireline net neutrality is squirrely. The companies suggest that they would be maintaining "net neutrality" on wireline services, but they'd allow "additional or differentiated services" over their networks.

"Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization," they wrote.

Again, this is just a policy paper, but this seems like a slippery definition of what is and is not Internet traffic. Why not carry these "additional services" over the Internet, where they would be subject to the net neutrality rules that these companies claim to think is a good idea?

As one commenter on Google's blog wrote, "If you can't redefine the word 'neutrality', redefine the word 'Internet' instead."

Om Malik summed it up nicely:

The temptation to accept this compromise as good for everyone may force a version of network neutrality that leaves mobile, one of the fastest areas of innovation on the web, out of the new rules. It also enables an alternative version of the public Internet that could lead to the creation of a first-class and a second-class system of packet delivery.
Do those things matter? Probably, but maybe not as much as net neutrality advocates would contend. What I'm left wondering is whether this kind of proposal -- which exudes the sickly sweet smell of political horsetrading -- is what's needed to break the net neutrality stalemate.

So You Think You Can Surf the Web?

Thumbnail image for trailblazers_2.jpg

A German design student launched a web surfing competition called Trailblazers earlier this month in Stuttgart. Starting and ending websites are specified; the winner is the one who travels from one to the other with the fewest number of clicks. No search engines, no holds barred! The event was live and held in meatspace, as documented in the video below. The next edition of the competition will be held at ARS Electronica in Austria.

The introductory instruction is somehow deeply satisfying to my inner nerd: "Surf the classic way from amazon to pirate bay." (The classic way!)

 trailblazers_1.jpg

Via Cara Rose de Fabio / Today and Tomorrow

Best of the Web

How 'Moore's Curse' Spells Trouble for VC Investing in Energy

Thoreau's Walden Is 156 Years Old Today, but Relevant as Ever

Happy birthday, Walden.

Today in 1854, Henry David Thoreau released his nuanced and readable account of two years that he spent largely alone in a cabin near Concord, Massachusetts.

"His distillation of two years living in relative seclusion offers deep insights not just into the natural world and humanity's place in it, but how that relationship was being impacted -- and degraded -- by the Industrial Revolution," Wired's Randy Alfred reminds us. "It remains to this day a trenchant criticism of the excesses of technology,"

Walden is a fantastically good book, and Thoreau's unadorned style feels shockingly contemporary, even if his analysis of networks differs from our own. "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate," he wrote. And in one of the most famous and beautiful passages from the book, we read:

We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us. Did you ever think what those sleepers are that underlie the railroad? Each one is a man.... The rails are laid on them, and they are covered with sand, and the cars run smoothly over them. They are sound sleepers, I assure you. And every few years a new lot is laid down and run over; so that, if some have the pleasure of riding on a rail, others have the misfortune to be ridden upon.

Looking back at Thoreau, though, it's important to realize that he was as out of sync with his own times as he sometimes seems with ours. He's part of a long-standing American counterculture, the one that wonders whether all of our irritable striving to build and buy things is worth the bother.

The prominent journal, The North American Review declared as early as 1832 that "the general sentiment is decidedly, so far as we have been able to ascertain it, in favor of machinery. A few apostles of the opposite doctrine have arisen here and there; but their converts have not been numerous." The American love for machinery was widespread, and as historian Hugo Meier noted, "perplexed European observers."

In a country where so many gamely adopt the latest new gadget, we need our Thoreaus, not to stop the profusion of technology, but simply to remind us to use them well. There are spaces shot through our massively complex society to find "Simplicity! Simplicity! Simplicity!" by simply deciding to look for it.

Take another grave and important personality of the time, Abraham Lincoln. His views on technology, delivered in a series of speeches on "Discoveries and Inventions" in the years directly after Thoreau's Walden, were more positive. For Lincoln, technology did not debase humanity, as Thoreau would have contended, but it also wasn't a magical staircase leading to a better world under the label of Progress.

"Although convinced that 'discoveries and inventions' had rescued humankind from savage beginnings, produced abundance, and put genuine democracy within reach, Lincoln recognized that advancing technology alone would not guarantee freedom, but might bring new forms of mastery," the historian Eugene Miller summarized in a 2001 article for The Review of Politics. "Lincolnian statecraft seeks to moderate or limit this advance not through stringent controls, but by a moral teaching that builds on the natural to oneself and includes a doctrine of labor."

5 Fun Facts from Skype's IPO Filing

Skype, the Internet communications company once owned by eBay, is going public, according to documents documents filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A company's prospectus is a rich source of small datapoints about how a place operates. Here are five interesting tidbits we noted combing through the filing:

  • Skype has 560 million total users, 124 million monthly log-ins, and 8.1 million monthly paying users. (All numbers substantially up over 2009.)
  • In the first six months of 2010, Skype users made 95 billion minutes of voice and video calls. Over the same period, the company generated $406.2 million in revenue. Even though not everyone is paying, that still works out to about 2.3 cents per minute averaged over the entire user base.
  • 40 percent of Skype calls were video-to-video.
  • The average paying Skype user spends $96 a year.
  • Skype has to pay credit card companies back when users make fraudulent purchases with stolen credit cards. In 2009, that cost them $5.8 million. 
And though it's not really a factoid, I liked this confirmation that Europeans really do take the summer off:

Our net revenues exhibits seasonality because many of our users reduce their use of our products with the onset of good weather during the Northern Hemisphere's summer months and our users tend to use our products more in the fourth quarter during the holiday season resulting in weaker net revenue growth during the second and third quarter of the year. Furthermore, we experience significant spikes in the use of our products during significant world events, such as Christmas and the Chinese New Year, or regional events, such as the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland.

Explaining Bizarre Robot Stock Trader Behavior

BKF_080310.png

Odd patterns in the stock market, like those we reported on this week, are open to a wide variety of interpretations. They are clearly generated by robot traders, but it's not clear what those algorithms are doing.

Nanex, the data services company that discovered and visualized the very high-speed bursts of curious orders, has theorized the bots could provide some millisecond advantage to their operators by confusing their competitors. High-frequency trading experts Michael Kearns of the University of Pennsylvania and MIT's Andrew Lo disagreed with that assessment.

Kearns offered two reasons why Nanex's "quote stuffing" thesis seemed unlikely to him. One, it's not technically easy to gain that advantage and two, the data suggests that there aren't actually competitors to beat in the specific circumstances under which the bots are running.

"The quote stuffing theory is that this behavior is kind of like a denial of service attack. You flood some exchange with these orders. Your competitors have to process those orders in their data feeds, but since you placed them, you could ignore them," Kearns explained. "The reason this is unlikely is that we cannot think of any easy way for somebody to ignore the own orders that they've placed without having some risk."


Technically speaking, there just isn't a simple "ignore my own phony orders" button that a trading firm could press.

"What a firm has is nine real time data feeds from the exchanges [e.g. NASDAQ] that are telling them what the quotes are from those exchanges in real time. Let's say I'm flooding some exchange, how do I know which orders to ignore?" Kearns asked. "I at least have to have my code pick up each incoming order to inspect it just enough to know it's my order, but then I haven't ignored it at all. These orders are very simple. You can look up the raw data. And each one is like a line of text. The expensive thing is not doing something complicated to that line of text, it's inspecting it in the first place."

The second reason that quote-stuffing is unlikely is slightly more difficult to understand. The basic idea is that we can only see the algorithms working in stocks on exchanges that are illiquid. There aren't a lot of buyers and sellers around. In fact, there aren't any. If there were, we wouldn't be able to see the patterns with such clarity because other people's bids and asks would mess them up. "That creates a problem with the argument that it's being done to slow down competitors," Kearns concluded. Essentially, on these specific stocks on these specific exchanges at these specific times, there aren't competitors to slow down.

So, if it's not quote-stuffing, why would a firm engage in this behavior? Lo and Kearns offered a few theories of their own about what could be happening.

MNTA_080510.png

"To be honest, we can't come up with a good reason," Kearns said. What's particularly difficult to explain is how diverse and prevalent the patterns are. If algorithmic traders are simply testing new bots out -- which isn't a bad explanation -- it doesn't seem plausible that they'd do it so often. Alternatively, one could imagine the patterns are generated by some set of systemic information processing mistakes, but then it might be difficult to explain the variety of the patterns.

Kearns does have a leading explanation, though, which he emailed to me after we spoke.

"It's possible that the observed patterns are not malicious, in error, or for testing, but for information-gathering," Kearns observed. "One could easily imagine a HFT shop wanting to regularly examine (e.g.) the latency they experienced from the different exchanges under different conditions, including conditions involving high order volume, rapid changes in prices and volumes, etc. And one might want such information not just when getting started, but on a regular basis, since latency and other exchange properties might well be expected to change over time, exhibit seasonality of various kind, etc. The super-HFT groups might even make co-location decisions based on such benchmarks."

MIT's Andrew Lo, who is the director of the school's Financial Engineering laboratory, offered a variation on that thesis. He contends that the algorithms are being used not to test latency but to probe the actual market conditions.

"What I think is going on is that there are algorithms that have been designed to monitor the markets and essentially create a kind of trolling function to try to identify orders that might be executed and to do that in a regular and relatively systematic way," he said.

He likened the algorithms to "financial radar."

"I think this is not random nor is it hard to understand what the motive is," Lo contended. "If you think about the way modern radar works, if you didn't know anything about radar, what you would see is pattern of electromagnetic radiation shot out at regular interviews and then you'd see patterns of the reflections of the objects out there.This is financial radar that we're seeing."

Traders want to put out tens of thousands of orders in a really short period of time precisely because they are probing for the split second when a buyer or seller shows up.

"Suppose that you would like to identify to the nearest millisecond when an order is placed and at what price. If you want to detect the trade to the nearest millisecond, you are going to have to submit orders faster than that," Lo said. "The pattern gives you a sense of the fineness of the mesh that's being constructed to try to capture the first trade that occurs."

That first trade acts as a forecast for where the price of the stock is going. "If you see an order that's being placed at $1.05 at time T, and $1.06 at time T+1 then you start betting on that for the next few milliseconds," Lo explained. "The faster you can detect the trend, the more likely you are to make money."

AON2_072910.png

Lo even offered a way of testing the algorithms to see if he's right about what they're doing. He figures that if you could squeeze into the patterned trading and take them up on an offer, they might switch into a different phase of operation.

"What would be interesting but potentially expensive to do is when you would detect patterns like this would be to trigger an order to hit the bid on the offer on one of these regular sweeps and see what happens to the pattern," Lo said.

Kearns argued, though, that the kinds of wild ordering strategies that we see aren't necessary to probe the market. "What's weird about these patterns, the sawtooth patterns, say," he said, "where you're alternating [prices up and down] with no hope of a trade is that If I were going to explore the idea of a large number of patterns to see what works, there's just no need to place orders that far from the market, especially given how quickly they are being removed."

The only people who know for sure what's going on in the market are the traders themselves and the exchanges on which they work.

At the highest level, though, the robot traders provide a unique lens on exactly how fast and complex our financial system has become. Upon the discovery of this new and apparently pervasive behavior, it is not immediately clear how to explain it, even for the brightest minds in the field.

Our regulators have tools built for assessing a market measured in seconds, but technology has pushed the markets down to the millisecond level.

"The observation to make is that this isn't as innocuous as it might seem, not so much because there is anything wrong with high-frequency trolling but rather because the regulatory infrastructure that monitors these markets are not designed to deal with this kind of latency and high-frequency," Lo pointed out. "That can create significant problems, not the least of which is the Flash Crash. There are fairness issues. There are transparency issues. There are stability issues. We need to resynchronize the regulatory infrastructure with the technology of our time."

"We're seeing innovations that dramatically increase the speed and throughput of the market, and that works great until it doesn't," Lo concluded. "And when you have some problem, like the flash crash, then you'll have version 2.0 and people will fix it. We're still in version one-dot-something and there are certainly improvements that have to be made in the regulatory infrastructure."


Images: All images courtesy of Nanex. Full explanations of the patterns at their site.

Best of the Web

McSweeney's Guide to 'Screen-Layering'

Best of the Web

Washington Tries to Decide What to Do About Online Privacy

Best of the Web

Google: There Are Exactly 129,864,880 Books in the World

The Two Really Useful Features Twitter Added Without Telling Anyone

inception2_600.jpg

Twitter became substantially more useful over the past couple of months, courtesy of two small changes to the way the service's real-time search works. Neither tweak was announced, which is a shame because they might be the best things the service has done since it gained traction a few years ago. 

First, now, when you search for something like "Inception" or "Elena Kagan," the top three search results are calculated by the number of retweets that comment has received. Functionally, this means that the funniest, most relevant, or interesting tweets get surfaced. (See above.) Before, the real time search function used to bring up just the most recent tweets, which were often random or boring.

Second, because of the character limitations on Twitter, nearly everyone uses URL shorteners to post links. Some time in May, Twitter started peeking into those links. What that means is if you search "theatlantic.com," anybody linking to this site will appear, even if they use a URL shortener. For media websites, that's an incredibly useful bit of functionality because we can capture a larger percentage of the discussion around our posts. (See below.)

Though both changes were rolled out weeks ago, you may not have noticed them if you mostly use Twitter through a client like Tweetdeck and don't find yourself at Twitter.com very often. Perhaps, after years of playing catch up with user growth, Twitter's engineers are finally getting around to implementing useful and new features. (Or so we can hope -- when I went to tweet this story, I (of course!) got a fail whale.)

twitterchange2_600.jpg

Best of the Web

2-Minute Video Shows 5 Ways to Beat Internet Filters

Best of the Web

Google Wave Closing Down

Nerds: Dr. Dre Should Be Your Favorite Rapper

In an interview with Vibe Magazine, famed producer and rapper Dr. Dre dropped the most exciting tidbit the space hip hop world has ever heard.

Dr. Dre is working on an instrumental album about what the various planets sound like!

An instrumental album is something I've been wanting to do for a long time. I have the ideas for it. I want to call it The Planets. I don't even know if I should be saying this, but fuck it. [Laughs.] It's just my interpretation of what each planet sounds like. I'm gonna go off on that. Just all instrumental. I've been studying the planets and learning the personalities of each planet. I've been doing this for about two years now just in my spare time so to speak. I wanna do it in surround sound. It'll have to be in surround sound for Saturn to work.
Quick, somebody tell NASA! Ok, I'll do it.

Update: Accidentally left a 'p' out of one of Dre's titles up there. Now added.


[Via Rap Radar]

Best of the Web

Could 'Next Page' Buttons Die Soon?

'Poligraft' Tool Lets You Follow the Money From Your Browser

Poligraft.jpg


A new tool from the Sunlight Foundation embeds campaign finance information right into online news stories. Poligraft automatically exposes financial relationships between people and organizations, a function that would have required deep journalistic digging just a few years ago.

I ran a few of our political stories through Poligraft and not every one pulled up much interesting. But sometimes, the tool does reveal an important piece of context.

Take our recent story about John McCain's battle to find out more information about a satellite program that's currently administered by Lockheed Martin. Run the story through Poligraft and it highlights John McCain and Lockheed Martin, then calls up a campaign finance database to tell you how much money ($131,475) the company has given to the politician.

Campaign finance information has long been publicly accessible online, but it's rarely right at your fingertips when you might want it. Sunlight has effectively shrunk the distance between the data and the news -- and we love it.

There's even a browser bookmarklet that lets you follow the money with a single click.

The Biggest Story in Photos

Protests Spread Across Brazil

Subscribe Now

SAVE 65%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)