X : Do you think cloud will decentralise?
Me : Already has - started with regions and AZs and is now rapidly expanding into outpost, greengrass, EKS anwhere.
X : No, I mean many providers.
Me : There are two forms of decentralisation - provision and control (i.e. authorities) ...

... what is happening is decentralisation of provision (i.e. cloud everywhere, at the edge) but under centralised authorities (Amazon, Alibaba, MSFT, Google etc).
X : What about decentralisation of control?
Me : Many companies working to a common standard ...
... that was the dream of OpenStack but they blew that on day one creating a collective prisoner dilemma. They are trying to recorrect this with K8s but the cloud has moved on, higher up the stack ...
... so, the idea of a marketplace of many different companies each having authority is ... wishful thinking by past vendors and clients they've hoodwinked. Maybe in 15-20 years we will get another go ... open source is a long game ...
... more likely is many points of provision i.e. companies offering EKS anywhere on a utility basis but under centralised authority e.g. AWS.

So, yes, the cloud is going to edge, has been for sometime but it'll be AWS / Alibaba / MSFT cloud that is everywhere.
X : Open source as a long game?
Me : When it comes to unseating a commodity, it's not easy. ASF has the long term view and the community players to make this sort of stuff happen. You won't get there with a "quick rush, grab some VC money and profit" approach.
X : I thought you said 10-15 years?
Me : That was back in 2015. A lot of damage has been done to Open Source since then. You can barely move without some new Open Source Foundation dropping on you. A lot of rebuilding is needed - https://t.co/cOLhmywQdE
... it might well be that the Open Source challenge comes from China. There is some good community work happening there, well worth keeping an eye on.
X : Alternatives?
Me : Amazon et al continue their open source approach and it'll all be open sourced anyway. You'll be able to build your entire stack but you'll still use those centralised authorities because whilst it'll be distributed, it'll be "on chip".
X : "On chip"
Me : Yep. EC2 on chip is already happening, in the near future it'll be Lambda on chip.
X : A Lambda chip in your laptop?
Me : I would guess it'll eventually be in your home router, connected via project kuiper and sidewalk to a world wide mesh. You don't get much more distributed than that.
X : An Amazon router for every home with a Lambda chip?
Me : Well, yes ... I'd imagine that some future combination of Echo and Eero would have this covered. But we're not there yet.
X : What about the telcos?
Me : Well, they should have provided a standardised IoT gateway / hub about a decade ago. Not my problem, they created this mess for themselves with all their fighting over traffic shaping and trying to profit from pipes. Tough luck.
X : Tough luck?
Me : Well, for the future generation of executives who take over. The current crop have plenty of time to comfortably retire and claim that "it was all fine when I was in charge" whilst writing a few memoirs on their marvellous leadership etc.
X : Chambers?
Me : Lol. I normally look at a company seven years after the executive has finally left to determine how successful they were. In the case of Cisco, I'll take a look in 2024 and tell you what I think.
X : Seven years?
Me : Yep. Some of my past research indicates that seven years is the right timeframe. Ideally executive compensation (stock, options etc) should vest seven years after they've left. It would certainly give a longer term perspective.
Me : Such an approach would benefit both shareholders and employees. It would also end sweat and acquire games along with a host of other short term measures. The focus would be much more on the legacy created.
X : Does anyone do this?
Me : Not that I'm aware of.
X : But doesn't they create an incentive to leave?
Me : Well, an incentive to leave with a bright future and the right people and plans in place ... yes ... that's the point.
X : Immediate needs?
Me : Loans against future expected earnings. There'll be market contracts for that.
X : So will this happen?
Me : No.
X : Why?
Me : The problem is the shareholders. It's of benefit to long term holders but not to short term holders. The current system suits those looking for that quick return. You'd have to change the market to start thinking about long term.
X : How?
Me : Minimum terms i.e. if you're investing in a company then you'd have to hold the stock for at least a decade. Back to the old ways of long term investing.
X : Will that happen?
Me : Not in my lifetime. Too many financial instruments are built on the short term.
X : And that's bad?
Me : Well, it encourages certain behaviour i.e. when we detect a change is happening (like a shift from product to utility) then we invest in the long term (i.e. the utility) but still invest in the past world as long as it plays sweat and acquire.
X : ?
Me : The old world needs to squeeze assets, purchase equivalent distressed companies, squeeze more and return value until there is nothing left to squeeze in which case it goes over the cliff. We double up by shorting at that point. So ...
... short term return from old players plus chance of shorting plus long term return from utility players. Rinse and repeat.
X : Long term holdings would stop that?
Me : Yep. We'd have to encourage companies to evolve / adapt. Adds more risk to shareholders. Not going to happen.
X : Given modern political and economic history, I’ve learned not to immediately rule out possibilities.
Me : Fair point. Ok, "not going to happen without a fight" ... too many vested interests.

More from Simon Wardley

"Fifty-nine percent of those polled said they believed China will become more powerful than the U.S. within 10 years" - https://t.co/3vN4I1TjwP ... I hate to break it to you but it already is in many areas.

When I published this work (originally from 2015) -
https://t.co/GYOItA3StZ - I did tend to get a lot of pushback from US folk when presenting it.

Six years later, less so.


I expect China to start to tackle inequality this year. It's the Achilles heel of the West. We have no response, nor Governments with the required skill, strategy or practice to respond.

We will ultimately face a more advanced, more wealthy and more equal society ...

... as that example of what "is possible" / "good looks like" shift to the East, we will face a painful shift as we question our own values including our kind of democracy. But in reality, the problem is not with our values but our shockingly poor standards of leadership.

X : Is this because of Trump?
Me : No, this has been going on since the 1990s. There has been no effective counterplay to the long game that Deng Xiaoping started. Just hubris, arrogance and exceptionalism with annual Economist articles on "How China will fall".

More from For later read

@snip96581187 @Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen Clearly, because as I have been saying for 8 months now, DTRA and DARPA have been using Ecohealth and UC Davis to collect novel pathogens for gain of function work back in the USA. I have documented this in many threads which I will post here just to annoy everyone.

@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
1. The death of Silicon Valley, a thread

How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.

Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were


2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work

3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics

4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things

5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley
Part of what is going on here is that large sectors of evangelicalism are poorly equipped to help people deal with basic struggles, let alone the ubiquitous pornography addictions that most of their men have been enslaved to for years.


On the one hand, there's a high standard of holiness. On the other hand, there's a model of growth that is basically "Try Harder to Mean it More." Identify the relevant scriptural truth & believe it with all of your sincerity so that you may access the Holy Spirit's help to obey.

Helping sincere believers believe and obey the Bible facts is pretty much all the Holy Spirit does these days, other than convict us of our sins in light of the Bible facts.

If you know you are sincere and hate your sin and believe the right Bible facts as hard as you can but continue to be enslaved to your pornography addiction, what else left for you to do? Just Really, Just Really, Just Really Trust God and Give it to Him?

To suggest that there are other strategies available sounds to those formed in this model of growth like one is also suggesting that the Bible is insufficient, but it also suggests something just as threatening- that there are aspects of reality that are not immediately apparent.

You May Also Like

And here they are...

THE WINNERS OF THE 24 HOUR STARTUP CHALLENGE

Remember, this money is just fun. If you launched a product (or even attempted a launch) - you did something worth MUCH more than $1,000.

#24hrstartup

The winners 👇

#10

Lattes For Change - Skip a latte and save a life.

https://t.co/M75RAirZzs

@frantzfries built a platform where you can see how skipping your morning latte could do for the world.

A great product for a great cause.

Congrats Chris on winning $250!


#9

Instaland - Create amazing landing pages for your followers.

https://t.co/5KkveJTAsy

A team project! @bpmct and @BaileyPumfleet built a tool for social media influencers to create simple "swipe up" landing pages for followers.

Really impressive for 24 hours. Congrats!


#8

SayHenlo - Chat without distractions

https://t.co/og0B7gmkW6

Built by @DaltonEdwards, it's a platform for combatting conversation overload. This product was also coded exclusively from an iPad 😲

Dalton is a beast. I'm so excited he placed in the top 10.


#7

CoderStory - Learn to code from developers across the globe!

https://t.co/86Ay6nF4AY

Built by @jesswallaceuk, the project is focused on highlighting the experience of developers and people learning to code.

I wish this existed when I learned to code! Congrats on $250!!