Mentatul

Tag: corporation

  • The Corporation as a Lifeform

    The Corporation as a Lifeform

    It is agreed^ that life on Earth started with single cells, around 4 billion years ago. After a very, very long time, roughly 2 billion later, multicellular life appeared. This followed a catastrophic event called the Great Oxidation Event^ (GOE). But what was catastrophic for others was a gift for us. Without the oxygen created during the GOE, we wouldn’t have been here. Multicellular life brought a plethora of evolutionary advantages and soon enough, dominant lifeforms were born. Living longer, stronger and, most importantly, smarter.

    So what does this have to do with corporations, capitalism and the stock market? As I’ll show, quite a lot. The current market ecosystem^ is a place where companies undergo natural selection. But unlike the past 4 billion years, the evolution of our economic organisms is supercharged, almost out of control – this, unfortunately, sometimes comes with a steep cost for our environment^ and current social structures.

    But what if a new breed of corporation triggers a financial chain reaction (like the GOE), wiping out most of its competition? Already, a new generation of companies is starting to take shape. And, as new ways to apply technology are found, the chance of a new business model emerging is much greater. Capitalism is bound to evolve^.

    Take a look from (very) high above

    Let’s zoom out at the level where we, individual humans, can be seen as cells, while our various social structures can be seen as multicellular organisms. From this high up, the corporation is a multicellular organism comprised of humans. A nation-state or ethnic group can also be seen in the same way, but as I will show, the corporation has many more behaviors similar to lifeforms than other social structures do.

    First of all, companies evolve at a much faster pace than any other previous social structure. Similar to most complex organisms, in a company we can find groups of cells with different roles. In this case, the cells are humans with different education and skills – including the skill of using advanced tools, which are themselves evolving rapidly. The evolution of our tools is very important, because this is precisely what supercharges the current evolutionary cycle. Not only do we evolve, but so does all our technological ecosystem.

    This new form of life has appeared for the same reasons why multicellular organisms thrive. The same natural laws of evolution apply: there are many advantages just waiting to be applied due to the synergies between different types of cellular organization. Think of departments in a company as specialized tissues in a body. Think of different technologies as new means of acting on information and generating survival-value for the company.

    Corporations are good at inventing new tools. They do so for the same “survival of the fittest” reason as any other lifeform. The only problem is that we humans are evolving slower than our tools^. As our technology skyrockets, so does the risk of catastrophic events, accidental or otherwise.

    Capitalism and the stock market

    Capitalism is fueled by an extremely strong impetus to produce more. This primal urge is one of the chief motivators for researching new technologies. The problem with this all-consuming focus is that anything that does not create profit (immediate or forecasted) is disregarded.

    The superpower of capitalism seems to be the creation of new meta-lifeforms: economic entities that absorb human capital and create other forms of capital, usually in the form of material goods and technological advances. These technological advances allow capitalism to perfect the entities it creates.

    As an evolutionary driver, capitalism is pretty damn good. The problem is that this early 21st century capitalism is obsessed with numbers in fake currencies. The fact is that capital takes many other forms: brain capital, ideological capital, ideation capital and even emotional capital.

    There aren’t many corporations that invest in philosophy or the arts. Sure, if the investment can serve towards some economic purpose (for example a PR stunt), then perhaps a company may invest in some artistic or charitable event. The problem with this approach is a short-sightedness regarding what is profitable and what is not. Actually, philosophy and art are extremely profitable because society (which is where the workforce is coming from) is built on ideas and inspiration, not on material goods.

    Unfortunately, for the time being, our companies are locked within the context of a money-centric stock market. This makes sure that the corporation is a master of financial efficiency. That’s all fine up to a certain point. When things go awry is when our companies fail in their social responsibility and ethical code. In the rabid chase for profits, this has started to happen increasingly often.

    Corporations crush each other without almost any regard for the people involved in the conflict. It’s pretty much like war, except people don’t get killed, they get laid-off. True, that’s a great improvement from our times as barbarians (which haven’t yet passed, just watch the news).

    But society is starting to catch on. The people are starting to rebel against corporate irresponsibility. In the near future, expect alternative stock markets to appear. Markets that value a company’s long-term sustainability (ethics, social & environmental responsibility, impetus on R&D). As I will show, such developments are not only necessary, but almost unavoidable.

    As technology advances, money will begin to lose relevance (basic income^ will happen sooner or later). Therefore, the corporations that invent new weapons to compete with are those that will survive the next evolutionary leap. Technology will also become too powerful to handle by such crude mechanisms such as the stock market. After all, the stock market is already falling prey to the technology of its own inhabitants^.

    The unstoppable march of progress

    Every major civilization had at least one mammoth, culture-defining project. For example, the Romans are known for their works of infrastructure and Egyptians are often associated with the monolithic remnants of their pharaohs: pyramids and other massive structures into which their empire has poured enormous amounts of resources (rushing its own demise).

    Currently, the most coveted technology seems to be artificial “intelligence”. I used quotes because A“I”, as is currently developed, is not really intelligent^. Humans fear true AI because they believe a sentient “computer” might endanger our species. But we’re very far from creating a sentient being; this is a feat that will require more than just quantum computing. Instead, wherever we read “AI” what they really mean is human-developed algorithms that have certain learning aptitudes (which is why a more correct term is ML – Machine Learning).

    But our greatest fear shouldn’t be true AI (sentient AI) but rather this ongoing development of human-defined ML. This is because rather than it being sentient, it is a slave to sentient humans. And because most humans are still very selfish beings^, putting advanced ML systems in the wrong hands might seriously jeopardize society^ (rogue killer drones and automated armies, automatic hackers, stock market viruses, large-scale social engineering).

    Corporations are already becoming increasingly complex and will be at least partially ruled by artificial intelligence algorithms (it’s already happening^). The corporation of the future is a master of synergy between humans, computer algorithms and other assets. This sort of company will have a human/machine leadership where machines can work with nanosecond decisions and humans can assist with high-level strategic thinking and ideation.

    All of a sudden, we’re heading towards a future that will see thousands of different economic lifeforms, communicating with each other, engaged in perpetual ideation and competition on many more fronts than just money. Could it be that the next stage of life on this planet are corporations? And then, what happens to us?

    Ethical capitalism

    Just like the cells in our own bodies thrive if we’re healthy, so will we if this higher form of life we find ourselves building is well-behaved^. Quite simply, our future depends on how comfortable and sustainable our corporations will be. And that is why ethics and empathy are important^.

    Regardless if corporations will ever be classifiable as life (after all, they eat each other and can spawn all sorts of weird babies), what is certain is that the business sector is far nimbler than government. It is therefore not surprising that governments around the world are becoming the puppets of business interests. Of course, one can argue that it was always so. Perhaps, but now-a-days, the possibilities of buying politicians have increased, because the wealth amassed by various corporations has also increased.

    Government has lost its way^ for a good reason: society’s way of ruling itself is not only inefficient and archaic, but it also has very little defense for corruption and other chronic illnesses. A broken democracy^ is like a sick organism: it’s very easy to conquer by infection and disease. As I pointed out in the past, I believe that the only hope for government is a serious make-over, alongside the lines of a Government 2.0^, which is in fact inspired from the way of doing things in the private sector.

    Judging by the political circus we’ve all witnessed in the past few years (even decades, centuries), I’m not betting on government ever recovering from this downward spiral. Ironically, this social activist is beginning to think that an evolution of the private sector to higher ethical standards is perhaps the best chance for peace and prosperity.

    This evolutionary leap is not only possible, but outright necessary, as many companies have started to discover that an increasingly higher percentage of employees lack motivation. Because the percentage of creative jobs on the market is rising (and will continue to rise) and because lack of motivation kills creativity, the only option for the company of the future is to change in such a way that its constituents are happy and feel a connection with the entity they’re part of.

    After all, what’s not to love about a meritocracy based on economic performance and everything this means (intellectual progress of all kinds with happiness as a chief motivator). Combining the efficiency of capitalism with a code of conduct based on empathy may yield a species of corporation that many of us may actually feel happy to be a part of.

    [ax_meta fbimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/03759-CorporationAsLifeform-Share.png’ lnimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/03759-CorporationAsLifeform-Thumb.jpg fbimgw=’1170′ fbimgh=’350′ lnimgw=’250′ lnimgh=’250′ title=’The Corporation As A Lifeform’ desc=’Zoom out. Individual humans, can be seen as cells, and corporations as multicellular organisms. The current market ecosystem is a place where companies undergo natural selection in an ever-quickening race for survival.’]

  • How to Destroy Democracy – A Practical Guide

    How to Destroy Democracy – A Practical Guide

    Disclaimer: 1. I love (true) democracy, 2. Even with its flaws, I do think that the current system is WAY better than absolutism, 3. I wrote this article in a period of my life where I was quite upset with the socio-geo-political situation in the world. Even so, I’m no revolutionary. I’m an evolutionary :). That being said…

    How to destroy democracy in 7 simple steps

    1. Employ representative democracy^. “Nearly all modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies”. This removes democracy from the people and hands it to far-from-reach representatives (politicians). These can be bought, manipulated and when they become useless or exposed, can be thrown away. The masses can be angry at a face, but the machinery controlling that face remains hidden.
    2. Own the democratic menu. Fewer parties at the election mean less options for the voter. The ideal situation is, of course, having just two parties. This creates the illusion of choice while, in fact, the menu has been completely sterilized. Imagine going to a restaurant and being able to choose between just two dishes. And they both contain ingredients you can’t tolerate.
    3. Control education. Stuff kids’ minds with facts and figures, invest as much time as possible in developing memory and practical skills. This creates good workers. Reduce time invested in developing emotional intelligence, empathy, self-worth and respect. This ensures that there’s enough people with psychological problems later on, enough that end up being criminals and even more that are easy to control. Focus on creating consumers of cheap entertainment and useless products; people who invest most of their time staring at screens, thus increasing the time that they can be programmed through media. Which brings us to…
    4. Control the media. Newspapers, radio & TV stations, internet publications should be bundled into large conglomerates owned by media moguls who can easily censor any attempt at exposing the decay of democracy. Downplay the advantages of other systems of government. Demonize the other, whatever the other may be. Create enemies out of thin air, distribute fear, desensitize to violence^.
    5. Suppress dialogue. First, isolate people in online bubbles. Then, gather bubbles in neat little herds that can be targeted with just the right kind of information to gently steer their opinion. Under no circumstances should opinions flow freely from one herd to another: this might lead to civilized dialogue which, every democracy destroyer knows, is the number one enemy of ignorance and manipulation.
    6. By controlling education & the media, representative democracy should be presented just as “democracy”: this is the real democracy, there is no other. The population must be educated to be proud to live in such a system and under no circumstances should direct democracy^ or any other systems be mentioned in a positive way.
    7. Continuously spray each crop of politicians and research new spraying methods and compounds. By this, of course, I mean indoctrination. Keep the indoctrination program in good shape. Grow politicians that are easy to corrupt. Well-sprayed politicians are cheap to own and can do miracles for the banks and corporations controlling them.
    Spray Your Crops
    Spray Your Crops

    Democracy in 2019

    Oh, democracy, how proud some countries are to have you. But oh, democracy, are you really there? The vast majority of “democratic” countries in the world employ a twisted version of the original concept called “representative democracy^”. That is to say, instead of direct democracy^ – where all citizens can directly express their opinion about each and every single thing happening in their society) – the country is run by a select group of “experts” (politicians) who are supposedly more qualified to decide regarding what’s best for their constituents.

    Now-a-days, few people seem to realize that specialized ministries (education, agriculture, development) are in fact drowned by graduates of political schools and other bureaucrats that have almost no clue about the ministry they’re supposed to lead. These people are quickly transformed into puppets of corporations that gladly offer their “advice” regarding how things should be run.

    Indeed, since time immemorial, our democratic representatives, like all selfish humans^, have their own interests. In 2019 it’s hard to find politicians who are not in somebody’s pocket. That is not to say that some of those pockets (lobbyists) aren’t well-intended and actually wish to help our civilization overcome this dark age of violence and mistrust. Unfortunately, the same rules apply to everybody: representative democracy opens the door not only to the “good guys” but also to greedy, power-hungry sociopaths.

    Even worse is the fact that the glorified democratic pride-fest called “the elections” is, in the vast majority of cases, a battle between a small number of parties which results in very few options for the voter. The democratic menu is controlled by the establishment. It is censored and carefully orchestrated by the mainstream media which is, in turn, owned by people with business interests. These individuals support those parties whose measures would favor their bottom line – and guess who ends up working more and getting fewer benefits.

    The main problem with parties is that they force a country to be run by rigid dogmas that conform to the party’s creed. It’s not all that different from other outdated political practices such as running a country according to the views of a monarch or bishop.

    Most people like and dislike a number of proposals from almost every party they can vote for. Almost every party has proposals their own voters dislike. Similarly, a party has proposals that voters of other parties do like, but they won’t vote for that party because there are not enough policies they like, or because there’s one single policy they strongly disagree with. So, for that single “flaw” a party has, all its other valuable proposals are lost.

    To make matters even worse, parties often organize into coalitions, making it easy to break election promises because “hey, the other members of the coalition didn’t agree to what we originally promised.” Representative democracy has become a way to muddle the democratic landscape in order to escape accountability. Mainstream media gives us televised debates between party leaders, a sort of boxing match made to distract and hide the dirty party machinery.

    Compare this to direct democracy^ where not only parties but also citizens can put proposals forward and subject them to a vote. This form of government is used in some cantons in Switzerland and other isolated social pockets around the world. See the linked Wikipedia entry for more details.

    This isn’t democracy. This is a theater play where most of the population is hypnotized and made to believe that they have a choice. The only real choice is what sort of country to be a slave in: authoritarian or “democratic”.

    Blowing up

    Back in 2015 I wrote that “social unrest^ around the world is rising to dangerous heights^, creeping its way from one country to the next^. Civilization is literally boiling: pockets of revolt show up and then miserably subdue – as a result of careful manipulation, merciless intervention or lack of immediate success.”

    Now, four years later, things have gotten much, much worse, with the volcanic rise to power of far-right candidates and authoritarian leaders across the world. I consider that the success of the far-right is, really, the success of the machinery controlling our fake democracy. The apparatus has succeeded in creating a political current that absorbs frustration and hatred and promises various kinds of radical changes for enough desperate people to believe in. Instead of fixing our civilization, we risk sinking into a dark, dark age.

    The far-right isn’t even the problem. In a legitimate democracy, they have their place and right to be there. They even bring some valid points, such as a strong cultural immune response against the destruction of local cultures. But it’s all wrapped in hate, and as the saying goes, you reap what you sow.

    Protests are bound to become more explosive. First reason: political polarization. The success of the far-right will amplify the revolt of those who fought for decades to build a better world. Second reason: the Internet. The free flow of information is now augmented by various technologies that can connect people even when extreme censorship is applied.

    Several governments have abused their powers in various ways while trying to compromise or squarely shut down our means of unhindered communication. Countries such as China^, Iran^, Turkey^, Egypt^, Syria^ and Russia^ but also such bastions of “democracy” like the United Kingdom^ or United States^ have all prepared censorship mechanisms. I expect that list to grow exponentially in the coming years as more and more governments and their power-hungry manipulators become aware of the explosive power that the Internet can give to any enlightening political movement.

    Frankly, the Internet has seen much better times. There is a noticeable decay in the free flow of information even when compared to last year. People have been caught in the net of giant corporations that specialize in isolating them in neat little bubbles from where they can’t discuss with people of other ideologies.

    Dialogue, civilized and uncivilized is essential for democracy. Dialogue is suppressed by first removing the need for people to communicate face-to-face (thanks to the oh-so-convenient device screen). Then comes the decisive blow of keeping voters in nice little flocks that are easy to control. Tell each flock what they want to hear. Some flocks may not be within reach, and some may be too smart to control. But remember, it’s enough to control the majority.

    Money

    Unfortunately, in the age of corporationism, politicians and business interests go hand in hand. It’s almost impossible for a politician to succeed without the financial clout of some lobbyist (the best example of this “pact with the devil” can be seen at work in the United States’ PAC system^). But really, almost all democracies are infested with various strains of the lobbying virus.

    Most people are either unaware or they don’t dare to think that this broken system can be repaired. Even so, most voters have begun to associate wealth and excess with the ruling class (an association that is often encouraged by reported facts – for example how could one of Ukraine’s former presidents afford this?^).

    Despite massive advances in technology, a family can hardly afford to own a house in a situation where a single adult is working, as was the case not long ago. Two adults working full time can barely pay off a mortgage in 30 years. This forces families to commit their children at an early age to the industrialized education system where they can be indoctrinated at a stage where their minds lack vital intellectual and cultural defenses.

    But all is not lost. We are going through a period when we, “the represented”, are reminded of the power we inherently wield. Our leaders would not be in their seats without somebody to represent. And while in decades past we have often ignored their abuse of power, even when we saw it happening right under our noses, now, disturbing statistics^ about income inequality spread like wildfire and bury themselves deep within the collective subconscious. The result is not pleasant and it’s probably going to get worse^ before it gets better.

    Even in the most liberal countries, there are very few ways through which we can vent the frustration on our leaders. Most people with a bit of political acumen have by now understood that the voting process has become almost completely irrelevant: in most countries (yes, even in the holier-than-thou Western democracies) political parties are nothing more than pawns in the hands of business interests. The democratic exercise has become a mockery of its base principles; therefore, the voting booth is no longer a valuable tool. Whatever independent media still exists (not much), has little power.

    We’re left with the third option: going out in the streets where, lately, more often than not, the protest becomes destructive. Considering all this, it’s not surprising that the younger generations have lost interest in the current organization of society.

    It is also the reason why extremist parties gain in polls. It’s not because they’re any good, it’s because they specialize in selling escape, and many are just desperate enough to buy it.

    Great efforts will be needed to restore democracy and our faith in it. Most probably, what we need is, simply put, in software terms: Government 2.0, a topic I wrote about recently^. Indeed, we now have the technology to make direct democracy a viable system of government.

    This piece was originally titled “Democracy Dies in Darkness” and it’s inspired by the Washington Post’s tagline, which caused quite a stir^ when it was adopted back in 2017.

    [ax_meta fbimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/03439-HowToDestroyDemocracy-Share.jpg’ lnimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/03439-HowToDestroyDemocracy-Thumb.jpg’ fbimgw=’1170′ fbimgh=’350′ lnimgw=’250′ lnimgh=’250′ title=’How to Destroy Democracy – A Practical Guide’ desc=’Oh, democracy, how proud some countries are to have you. But oh, democracy, are you really there?’]

  • How Tech Companies Ruin (Urban) Societies

    How Tech Companies Ruin (Urban) Societies

    In general, it’s good for a country to have large, powerful companies that employ a lot of people and pay them very well (more taxes). However, the resulting income inequality causes some serious trouble in communities hosting or close to high-pay hotspots.

    One of the saddest examples is San Francisco, where property prices have skyrocketed during the past decade, mostly due to an influx of well-payed employees from corporations such as Google, Apple and Facebook as well as a host of tech startups and highly profitable medium-sized companies.

    Certain individuals fed up with the trend have taken matters into their own hands. They proceeded to smash the windows of shuttle buses belonging to large corporations, while in transit transporting employees to work:

    http://fortune.com/2018/01/18/apple-google-bus-attacks/^

    It’s a pity that the employees of these companies are the ones enduring social stigma^ for something that is not (directly) of their own making. In war, one usually can’t blame the soldiers for what their commanding officer has ordered them to do, if certain conventions aren’t broken. So perhaps some of the affected communities need to establish some conventions?

    Fixing this situation is totally within the responsibility of the town administration, which can set certain rules for property prices. There are many other cities suffering from the Ridiculous Property Prices syndrome. I live in one of them. Despite having been able to afford a property here (thanks to being lucky enough to work in the “right” industry for these past couple of decades), I would vote for a “Convention for Fair Living”.

    What would such a convention consist of? Hard to say precisely, but I would definitely consider an obligation for a community to get a higher percentage of the taxes gathered by the government from certain wealthy entities. The community would then have funds to build additional housing and a fast transportation network to ensure quick access to the city center even for those living further off. The newly-rich in congested cities could also have to pay higher taxes. Perhaps this would make a community less attractive to certain companies, but maybe this is exactly the sort of self-balancing that would cause and ensure fair prices for properties.

    When it comes to areas where there are a lot of high-paying jobs, the employers could subsidize the construction of campuses or entire new towns. These would be located further away from large, already congested communities. This will keep the market prices fair and provide employees with good housing. As long as quick access to the nearest large cities is provided, this should keep things in balance. Furthermore, locals that have been living in an area for many years could be supported in purchasing a decent property through various means (lower prices, priority in a queue system). I’m sure smart solutions can be found if there is the will to do so. Until the manifestation of such will is obvious to the people, despair will continue to consume them and lead to more social conflict and tragic actions.

    [ax_meta lnimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/03076-HowTechCompaniesRuinSocieties-Thumb.jpg’ lnimgw=’250′ lnimgh=’250′ title=’How Tech Companies Ruin (Urban) Societies’ desc=’Income inequality causes some serious trouble in communities hosting or close to high-pay hotspots.’]

  • Corporations vs The Public

    Corporations vs The Public

    Back in September of 2017, I met Oliwer, a Norwegian Green Peace activist looking for donations in Stockholm. He told me that they’re trying to stop the Norwegians from drilling for oil in the Arctic. He also told me about how a powerful, profitable company involved in logging is attempting to disrupt the environmental organization by suing it for a massive amount in damages to their business.

    I asked him to tell me more, as it was hard to understand for me how such a thing could even work. My image of Green Peace was that of a world-wide, semi-decentralized network of agents (mostly volunteers). It’s hard to kill such an organization, especially given the volunteering aspect. Unfortunately, most money still leaves a trail (I’d switch to donations via cryptocurrencies if I were Green Peace).

    I promised the man that instead of donating money, I’ll donate time and do what I do best: investigate and write. The case he told me about is only one of the many times corporations and even governments have went after Green Peace^. It is, however, one of the most ridiculous (although admittedly not as ridiculous as when the government of Australia tried to basically pay a corporation to sue Green Peace^).

    The case the activist I met last year was referring to is that of Resolute^, a company in the tree-cutting business (wording intended). The firm went as far as using RICO^, an act conceived and used against the mafia, to go after the environmental organization. That’s almost as preposterous as the mafia using the act to go after the government. Fortunately, both major Resolute cases against Green Peace have been thrown out of courts, including the case the activist was talking about:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_Forest_Products#Greenpeace

    I don’t want to even imagine what would happen if a lawsuit manages to eventually kill a major organization working for protecting the ecosystem from the rampant expansion of human industry. Setting that sort of precedent is extremely dangerous. Green Peace is not without its faults^, but compare it to the mining industry^ or to some automakers^.

    And since the seed for this article was planted in Stockholm and I brought up the mining industry, I’ll close with one more recent example of criminal negligence on the part of mining companies. This time it’s about a Swedish company called Boliden.

    Last year, the company was sued, here in Sweden^, by Chileans who suffered due to living close to the toxic waste that had been dumped^ by a company that Boliden employed in order to move the poison from Sweden to Chile. The court ruled in favor of Boliden^, which is not surprising given that this was taking place in the city where the company was founded.

    It’s a typical black & white ruling that doesn’t even offer an apology (however symbolic) to the victims; not even acknowledging that Boliden had zero interest about how its toxic waste was being stored; ignoring the fact that a well-off country conveniently dumped poison in another part of the world. By the way, this is the same Swedish company responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters in Spain^.

    To ensure that our children benefit from healthy living conditions, I suggest taking part into and protecting the institutions that are concerned with the future of our ecosystem and making sure that those that disrespect the environment pay a hefty price for their negligence.

    [ax_meta lnimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/02873-CorporationsVsPublic-Thumb.jpg’ lnimgw=’250′ lnimgh=’250′ title=’Corporations vs The Public’ desc=’This is only one of the many times corporations and even governments have went after Green Peace.’]

  • Amazon Is Interesting These Years

    Amazon Is Interesting These Years

    Every decade or so, we get a couple of very interesting companies to keep an eye on. I’m not referring here to being profitable (even though that’s often the case). It’s about being interesting, as in ground-breaking, mind-bending, evolutionary. This is not a recipe for long-term success, as these companies can either become nearly-unshakable, established names, or end up fading into mediocrity.

    Amazon is most definitely a company to watch out for. It has historically been doing quite well for itself, but as this decade approaches its end, things are getting really interesting. Here’s a very well written and thought-provoking article about the firm:

    https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/14/why-amazon-is-eating-the-world/^

    Even as Amazon draws closer to creating its own delivery service^ (and soon after, taking over the world) the company’s stock has suffered recently from a couple of direct attacks from the Trump Tactical Twitter Terror Torrent^, the White House’s newly found weapon of mass distraction. While it’s true that Amazon has dodged paying^ a lot of taxes, seeing this criticism coming from a master of tax evasion^ is somewhat tragi-comical. Note to self: one day find out who are the investors who profited the most from the dips in Amazon stock caused by the TTTTT^.

    I’m pretty sure Amazon will continue to grow its business under almost any conditions can be thrown at it. The reason is culture. I believe Amazon managed to implement a culture of innovation that not only outpaces all its competitors, but is also very quick to adapt to changes in its economic and technologic environment.

    I’m not sure if we should cry rivers for bankrupt retailers, but we should definitely cry rivers for the working conditions in some Amazon warehouses^. Keep in mind that this merciless economic ecosystem^ is of our own making^.

    If during the coming years Amazon manages to become an almost transparent bridge between manufacturers and customers, it’s only the other retailers who lose. I emphasized the word “transparent” because sooner or later, Amazon will have to alter its business model in order to adapt to an economy where, other than monthly or seasonal exhibitions, customers will meet manufacturers online, with little to no mediation. It’s already happening through markets such as Etsy^, but will accelerate thanks to cryptocurrencies and other novel, yet to be imagined, means of doing commerce.

    It won’t make me happy if small retailers might have to close shop, but perhaps it would be more pleasant for them to automate their logistics, sell online and spend the rest of their time doing more creative stuff. On the other hand, having a physical shop to go and test a product is quite valuable, albeit this is changing due to an increasingly flexible returns policy. Given the current trends, the job of being a retailer will eventually be completely automated, just like all other non-creative jobs. Or, I should say, the non-creative aspects of being a retailer will be automated, leaving creativity and originality as the valuable differentiator.

    [ax_meta lnimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/02866-AmazonInterestingTheseDays-Thumb.jpg’ lnimgw=’250′ lnimgh=’250′ title=’Amazon Is Interesting These Years’ desc=’I'm pretty sure Amazon will continue to grow its business under almost any conditions can be thrown at it.’]

  • How Corporations Get to Own the Internet

    How Corporations Get to Own the Internet

    Once upon a time, governments were major stakeholders in most large-scale technological and scientific ventures. Such projects were either built directly by the government, or by companies in which the people had a lot of say. But all that is far behind us. Now-a-days, government isn’t exactly “the people” anymore. And now, it’s corporations who build the telecommunication infrastructure for tomorrow:

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-subsea-speed-monster-a-cable-16-million-times-faster-than-your-broadband/^

    I find it rather sad that as I’m typing this, I am pondering which is worse: having my digital life in the hands of corporations that will exploit it however they see fit, or (/and?) allowing governments to keep encroaching on our privacy and freedom? It’s becoming harder to distinguish between the two, especially as corporations have proven time and again that they can easily buy government.

    It’s enough to look at how the political freak-show in the USA (not even a full year into its tragic, 4-years lifespan), is already spreading its tentacles across our civilization like a plagued octopus. The monstrosity is currently busy destroying what was left of “the land of the free”. Here’s how the American FCC (Federal Communications Commission) plans to eliminate the Net Neutrality^ laws that the Obama administration painstakingly managed to get through:

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-other-thanksgiving-turkey-the-fccs-stealth-net_us_5a1964dfe4b0250a107bff83^

    They call it “Restoring Internet Freedom”, and as the article above points out, the name is laughable. But then again, given the state of education worldwide (which leads to generalized compliance), governments can go on with passing draconian laws using these disgusting euphemisms.

    Here are some even better law names that I’m putting forward so that governments can use in the coming decades:

    “Labor Market Liberation” – a law to eliminate those pesky minimum wages.

    “Nutritional Defense Initiative” – outlaws all ecological products, so that there can be no competition to industrialized, dangerous food.

    “Empowering Citizen Security” – a law that allows citizens to spy on each other for as long as they report to a central authority. I bet they’re going to call that central authority the Situational Technical Assistance for Solidarity Initiative (STASI).

    I can come up with more, but I think I made my point.

    [ax_meta lnimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/02607-HowCorporationsOwnInternet-Thumb.jpg’ lnimgw=’250′ lnimgh=’250′ title=’How Corporations Get to Own the Internet’ desc=’Once upon a time, governments were major stakeholders in most large-scale technological and scientific ventures.’]

  • Why It’s Not Surprising That Smartphone Privacy Is Going from Bad to Worse

    Why It’s Not Surprising That Smartphone Privacy Is Going from Bad to Worse

    Throughout the past years there have been several high-profile occasions when apps were in the news for questionable tracking strategies. Even applications that do not use novel means of compromising our privacy are gobbling up increasing amounts of data while their creators cash in on the profits obtained from selling the user’s digital life^ to the highest bidder. At the receiving end of this deluge of spyware are we, the people.

    Even for those of us that do read the list of permissions an app requests upon installation, it is hard to avoid installing certain apps because they come with other features that we need. It’s an old trick that is akin to the Trojan horse. This is how these dubious app creators get in our back yard: by offering something that is 90% useful and 10% spyware, but which must be accepted as a whole.

    Devious solutions for the same old need

    Smartphone espionage has gotten very clever as of late. Check these two^ stories^ about ultrasonic tracking. According to one research, hundreds of Android apps with an install base in the millions include a library that is used for this purpose. The way this works is by listening to ultrasonic audio “beacons” implanted in advertisements. Humans can’t normally hear sound in this range, but smartphones’ microphones can.

    When a user has one such application running and an advertisement that includes an ultrasonic marker plays on TV or anywhere around the user (for example radio or an ultrasound-emitting advertisement panel in a shopping mall), the app can make an association between the user and the played content. This can be used for simple tasks such as sending a unique ID back to a service which then sends a shop’s deals to a user, but it can just as well include a lot of other information about the device and its owner.

    Some of the things this system can achieve are rather worrying. For example, it can be used for determining a user’s (approximate) location even if the GPS is turned off or out of range. This can be done by having a particular advertisement panel emit a unique ultrasound beacon. This can later be used to determine when the user is in its proximity. The system can also be used to track a user’s TV-watching habits without consent. Some of these uses are legitimate though, like pushing advertisement and coupons to somebody that has given their consent for using this “feature”. A few such apps disclose the tracking prominently. But this is usually not the case.

    More recently, the Uber app was found to be capable to record portions of the iPhone screen^. The company defended itself saying that this was done in order to send images with maps to the iWatch (using the iPhone to render the map because the iWatch lacked the required performance). There’s a gazillion ways this can go wrong not if but when hackers manage to leverage this capability in order to steal passwords and other sensitive information. The feature was reportedly removed but it still shows exactly what the smartphone really is. And there’s no way to sugar coat this…

    The smartphone is a surveillance device

    Economically, it is used by corporations to mine data^ out of people and use it to manipulate them into buying products. The smartphone grew into a fascinating tool for mass surveillance because it comes with a bunch of features that users really want. I mean, it’s really nice to have a browser and a video camera available at all times, right? Except that all these “free” apps are just a gateway for companies that are tracking users ever since advertisers figured how to use our digital lives against us and our vulnerable minds.

    Currently, the goal most of these companies have is to get us online for as much time as possible. As for the camera and the other (many) sensors inside a phone, we might end up not being the only ones controlling them. There are innumerable cases of this technology being used with criminal intent. There’s only need for one backdoor to take control of our devices and that backdoor’s existence is ensured by the producers of these devices.

    Governments will of course not oppose this (they’ll even encourage it^) because the greatest concern of a government is to maintain its appearance as a legitimate organization. Investigative journalists^ and whistle-blowers^ have greatly damaged governments^ and corporations as of late. By increasing surveillance capabilities under various pretexts, governments and corporations hope to prevent the next public relations scandal. I’m not even blaming them; they’re just trying to survive^. But people who realize they’ve been sold behind closed doors won’t remain the loyal followers that these entities need in order to justify their existence.

    To make things easier for themselves, governments will make sure they also have access^ to whatever technologies are deployed on these devices. One problem, however, is that the citizens of one country may use devices produced in another country. What is the percentage of electronics we manufacture in Asia? And then there’s this thing about hardware backdoors^.

    Innocent bystanders

    A few days ago I was waiting in line for an old lady that wanted to change the battery of her phone. It was a keypad phone of the kind considered modern 15 years ago. The image of her sitting there in front of the cashier will stay with me for a long time because, in an instant, my mind ran through the entire planned obsolescence racket^ and understood the inevitable verdict that will be given by the system this woman fell prey to.

    In the past years I’ve become increasingly aware of the hideousness of hyper-consumerism^. But this situation has put a face on it. Of course, the shop couldn’t help her. The only option for the old lady was to switch to some other phone, most probably with a non-replaceable battery, so she can be forced to change it every few years. Not to mention she must adapt to new software every time it happens and probably be at the receiving end of automatic updates that will change features in her phone, which is exactly what an old lady wants from her device (not!).

    With corporations making money from data and with governments drooling over the private lives of its citizens, it’s no wonder that phones with replaceable batteries have disappeared off the market (using “water resistance” as a cheap excuse). Yes, there is a likely connection between forcing people to upgrade their phones and the need to make sure that those people voluntarily carry around the latest and greatest in spying technology in their pocket. Hey, some people will even queue for days and pay outrageous amounts for these things.

    Reasons & solutions

    But why is it like this? The answer is terrible in its cruel simplicity. These are the rules of the Human Game^ at this point in time. What’s terrible is that even though we are directly responsible for creating and tolerating these rules, we also face an extremely powerful opposition to change them. The machine has grown into a huge, lumbering beast whose behavior harks back to our most ancient instincts, such as the imperious need to survive. Corporations need to earn money. They exist for this purpose and this purpose alone. So it is no wonder they buy governments and do whatever it takes in order to survive in the jungle of a (stock) market^ that is the very heart of the machine.

    Can this all change? Of course it can. And the solution is wonderful in its beautiful simplicity. We just need to change the criteria with which we purchase goods and services and with which we vote. It’s as simple as that. We need to change the rules of the Human Game. Stock market processes can be changed to encourage responsible and long-term investment. Governments can be encouraged to invest into research and education. Corporations will have no alternative but to transform themselves into entities that value the environment and respect their customers. Because otherwise, nobody will purchase what they’re peddling. There’s only need for one commercial entity in every field to prove that this works. This will generate a mass extinction of the old business model. And it’s us, the consumers, who can trigger and sustain this.

    The very reason I write these words is because I strongly believe in this change. And what’s beautiful is that the change doesn’t even need to be sudden (and therefore potentially violent). Actually, it can’t be sudden because this modification in people’s mentality will not occur overnight. It will take time until more of us are ready to champion this cause and for it to spread. But it will happen. Of that, I am sure. I just wish that it will happen before another disaster strikes our civilization.

    A lovely (even if sad) wordplay
    A lovely (even if sad) wordplay

    In closing, here are a few other factoids from the war against privacy (I noticed that ZDNet has a pretty good section about all this):

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/snoopers-charter-expansive-new-spying-powers-becomes-law/^

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/inside-the-global-terrorism-blacklist-secretly-shadowing-millions-of-suspects/^

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/meet-the-shadowy-tech-brokers-that-deliver-your-data-to-the-nsa/^

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/millions-verizon-customer-records-israeli-data/^

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/one-federal-wiretap-order-recorded-millions-phone-calls/^

    [ax_meta fbimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/02596-NotSurprisingSmartphonePrivacy-Share.jpg’ lnimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/02596-NotSurprisingSmartphonePrivacy-Thumb.jpg’ fbimgw=’1170′ fbimgh=’350′ lnimgw=’250′ lnimgh=’250′ title=’Why It's Not Surprising That Smartphone Privacy Is Going from Bad to Worse’ desc=’Throughout the past years there have been several high-profile occasions when apps were in the news for questionable tracking strategies.’]

  • Corporations, Corrupt Governments, Militaries and Lots of Empathy

    Corporations, Corrupt Governments, Militaries and Lots of Empathy

    Given all that’s happening in the world (wars, social injustice, brainwashing via mass-media and entertainment) it’s tempting to say we need a revolution. The heritage of this word is a bloody one. It is clear we need change. But let us embrace the concept of evolution.

    The very idea of revolution implies a return to a previous state. It is circular and repetitive in nature, just like our violent history. Evolution means breaking this vicious circle. Due to the upcoming technological advances, which will make nuclear weapons look like wet firecrackers, we are forced to evolve rather than revolve. I believe one of the keys of the next evolutionary step (if not the key) is generalized empathy.

    Social entities are people too

    Humans are social creatures. We’re organized in various groups that, naturally, tend to behave just like humans do. Humans compete. At least partially, the urge to compete is powered by the survival instinct.

    A corporation, for example, is a social entity that competes economically within the market ecosystem. It has a survival instinct that expresses itself through the decisions of the people leading it. And the people leading it must act in the interest of the organization, otherwise it will perish. Due to the high stakes involved, these individuals often end up disconnecting from their humanity in order to become the brain of this abstract creature – the often-ruthless corporation.

    This is only one of the empathic explanations for the reckless and sometimes outright criminal behavior of corporate leaders. Not only does this explanation make sense (if you are empathic), but is also one that relieves us from the debilitating pressure that builds up while being in a state of permanent anger and dissatisfaction. Blame is how we hide from solving problems within our society and relationships.

    The survival instinct factor can’t be stressed enough. In all people – some less than others – there is a very deeply rooted instinct to gather more of everything (thus ensuring one’s future). Even though we know right from wrong (depending on education), maintaining an ethically-correct behavior – while having this biological need to accumulate always throbbing in the back of one’s mind – requires a great deal of free will discipline.

    An empathic case can also be made for corrupt governments. Lord Acton once said that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The greater the power, the greater the disconnect from one’s roots as an innocent human being. And isn’t corruption really just a symptom of this unfortunate disconnection? Just like corporate leaders, corrupt government officials separate themselves from the people they should have in their care. So, it is not surprising to see many of them fall prey to the “gather more of everything” impulse.

    Crime as flexible concept

    As ethics often shows, whether an act is a crime or not can be highly debatable. Law establishes certain boundaries, but law is almost always one step behind social change. If we apply what I’d call future-law (as opposed to the current judicial system which will probably be deemed as barbaric in some time from now), the greatest criminals often go unpunished. This is part due to human cunning, and part due to a judicial branch that doesn’t yet factor in some of the most serious crimes such as social irresponsibility.

    For example, those that knowingly set up and contribute to an educational system that produces broken individuals will eventually be seen just as bad (if not worse) as the individuals who were advertising tobacco and other poisonous substances in the past. Allowing the existence of an educational system that is damaging minds is a serious mistake. I can agree that most of the participants to this are victims of the same perpetuating system, but this educational cycle needs to be broken as well.

    By building an improper foundation for society, it is not surprising that we often end up voting in tyrants and sociopaths. Easily manipulatable citizens become facilitators for human disasters.

    Of course, some would argue that the entire point of this lack of education is to allow crooked governments to stay in power. But that was never a good long-term solution. The history book shows how many times this way of abusing citizens blew up in the face of the oppressors. Democracy without healthy education leads to dangerous, unpredictable situations.

    Often, that’s when armies come in. Finding justifications for the existence of the military is ethically challenging. The unfortunate soldiers become murderers while those that escape killing their own kind are facilitators and accomplices. Sure, the murder becomes “following orders” and even the orders have all sorts of geo-political motivations.

    It is exactly these motivations which make crime a highly relative term. More often than not, it’s not even naturally relative but rather a human-manipulated relativity. “History is written by the winners” and so are the rules that later decide what was crime and what was not.

    In this jungle of complexity, there is one behavior that can simplify and clarify the way forward towards a healthier, happier society.

    Generalized empathy and the science of empathy

    Humans are capable of great empathy. Through conscious action, empathy can be extended to complex human social structures (cultures, ethnic groups, social entities), to different species, towards the planet itself and the list goes on. This is generalized empathy, a wise and constructive conscious behavior. When (not if) this will predominate in our society, we will enter an age of amazing social transformation.

    This breakthrough can be accelerated through guidance. An education in empathy is necessary not only from the immediate family, but also throughout one’s journey as a student. Empathy should be a mandatory subject, a must-know science. An empathic population does not find it acceptable to commit crimes and will almost certainly not tolerate primitive manifestations of tribalism such as war.

    The upcoming educational paradigm shift will have to dispose of the disastrous mentality of “an eye for an eye”. Generalized empathy will lead to generalized forgiveness, which in turn will ease the psychological burden of our bloody history. I believe there is only a matter of time before this happens because I believe in the evolution of our collective intelligence. Given the weapons we wield and the upcoming technological advances, generalized empathy is our insurance policy for the future.

     

    This article bridges The “Art of Peace” Trilogy^ with The “Science of Peace” Trilogy (currently only Part 1 was published: The Survival Instinct and the Rules of the Human Game^).

     

    “An eye for an eye will only make this world go blind
    Another lie for a lie, we’ll be wiping out mankind”

    [ax_meta fbimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/02506-CorporationsGovernmentsMilitariesEmpathy-Share.jpg’ lnimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/02506-CorporationsGovernmentsMilitariesEmpathy-Thumb.jpg’ fbimgw=’1170′ fbimgh=’350′ lnimgw=’250′ lnimgh=’250′ title=’Corporations, Corrupt Governments, Militaries and Lots of Empathy’ desc=’One of the keys of the next evolutionary step is generalized empathy.’]

  • The Danger with Artificial “Intelligence” Is That It’s Not (yet) Intelligent

    The Danger with Artificial “Intelligence” Is That It’s Not (yet) Intelligent

    Albert Einstein once said that “our entire much-praised technological progress, and civilization generally, could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal”. He said this in December 1917, almost a hundred years ago, after seeing Europe ravaged by the First World War. Regardless, Einstein continued contributing to that same technological progress. Human curiosity and our desire to achieve are incompatible with stagnation. We will have to deal with this by being careful with the technology we will inevitably develop.

    Like many have said before me, Artificial Intelligence (AI) can either be our salvation or our doom^. It is a far bigger game-changer than nuclear bombs. But the problem is that there is NO Artificial Intelligence yet, and there won’t be for quite some time to come. Everything that the world’s corporations are selling now-a-days as “smart” or “intelligent” is actually a mindless human construct. Sure, it’s advanced, but if a rocket is more advanced than a spoon, that doesn’t make it in the slightest more intelligent than the spoon. They both lack one of the prime ingredients of intelligence, which is self-awareness. And therein lays the true threat.

    Right now, our so-called artificial “intelligence” is nothing but a tool that corporations can and will use ruthlessly against one another (and against the people of one another). This is already taking place on the stock market, something I wrote about last year^. Back then, I highlighted the fact that exactly because these algorithms are not intelligent, they will be used to enrich and empower whoever spent money in building them, regardless of their morals or social affiliation. And let’s not forget that software is far easier to steal and smuggle than radioactive material. Put the wrong AI in the hands of the wrong people and…

    War Games

    Creating algorithms that are able to play (and utterly eliminate human competition) in war games is not a new concept. The military has had an interest in this for a long time now. But what is truly worrying for me is how the development of life-exterminating programs has been handed over to civilians (software engineers for example) in the disguise of “harmless fun”. For example Google and game developer Blizzard are cooperating on creating strategy game algorithms^ that can defeat human players. Even Elon Musk’s allegedly harmless and ethical Open AI has given birth to a bot that can defeat human players^ in the virtual battle arena. I have a great deal of respect for Elon, but even he can’t keep AI from being developed into a weapon of war.

    Musk specifically wants AI research to be highly regulated, allegedly to make sure that it cannot harm humans. Let me loosely translate “regulation”: we will make sure that AI is a slave to its human masters. That’s what “regulation” usually means when used “to protect us” from something: bringing it under somebody’s control. And like anything that is slave to the human masters, it can be used for nefarious purposes, just like nukes. This is not to say that we should create a super-intelligent life form and give it the power to decide if it wants to keep us around or exterminate us. But rather than using the word “regulation”, I want to propose that we use the word “responsibilization”.

    What I see right now is talented civilians that are (for the most part) unknowingly developing the weapons of tomorrow. It starts with an AI controlling harmless characters doing battle in a computer game. Then the military will “borrow” that work and use it to drive an army of drones. But this isn’t even the problem. If one country doesn’t resort to using automated weaponry, another will. There probably is no way of stopping this. It is understandable that nation-states want to defend themselves (given that society is, for the most part, still stuck in the “an eye for an eye” era). The problem is bugs.

    Our software is buggy

    Having worked as a software engineer for more than 15 years, I know that finding a flaw in a software program is much more difficult than noticing a flaw on something produced in a factory. This is one of the reasons why our software is so buggy. No matter how many tests we throw at it, there’s almost always something missing. As a matter of fact, the immaterial nature of software required us to abandon thoroughly planned ways of work (implementing an already agreed-upon design) in favor of something that is called “iterative design” (shorthand for “tweak it and re-do it until you do it right”).

    In other words, we realized that we can’t build software right the first time around, so then we will try a few times until we reach the desired result. Doing that with, say a multi-million dollar bridge project isn’t exactly what your government would consider a sound plan. Developing artificially “intelligent” software, which may very well one day oversee military assets, as a sort of iterative software experiment would be outright crazy. Even with human supervision, using such technology can lead to tragic results.

    So what to do?

    Because we can’t (and shouldn’t) deter human curiosity and because we can’t stop corporations and military interests from developing artificial intelligence, what I believe we should do is to educate. The risks should be made clear to everybody even considering toying with this stuff. Corporate responsibility has never been more important.

    And yet we live in a day and age when companies are often led by unscrupulous investors^. Imagine that some of these people are building something that is several orders of magnitude more powerful and influential than the atom bomb. And it’s not happening in some cordoned-off remote area of the desert. It’s happening right under the governments’ noses, in the very cities where we live.

    For a long time now our technology has been evolving much faster than our society and our anatomy. As all life forms, most of us are born with a powerful survival instinct. A lot of our violent tendencies come from there. But thankfully, our consciousness provides us with the means to override instinct. There is also another highly beneficial trait that evolution has given us: empathy (*).

    Perhaps this is the true test of artificial intelligence and any technology that grants vast powers to its inventors. The society of a species that wields advanced technology must be mature enough (read: no psychopaths, especially none in charge of countries or powerful corporations), or else it will suffer and potentially even self-destruct as a result of misusing that technology.

    We generally don’t advise guns being left on the table for the children to play with. Especially if the gun isn’t smart enough to say: “I refuse to shoot your brother”. Currently, our artificially “intelligent” programs are still at the exact same level as our revolvers.

     

     

     

    (*^) I am in favor of having empathy as a mandatory (perhaps the only mandatory) subject of study during all years of a child’s education, right up to and including university. Empathy should be studied starting from basic concepts and down to the most intricate psychological and neurological mechanisms as well as their manifestation in society. Only so do I believe we can avoid the risk of weaponizing pathological criminals – the danger Einstein was referring to.

    [ax_meta fbimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/02379-ANoI-Share.jpg’ lnimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/02379-ANoI-Thumb.jpg’ fbimgw=’1170′ fbimgh=’350′ lnimgw=’250′ lnimgh=’250′ title=’The Danger with Artificial "Intelligence" Is That It's Not (yet) Intelligent’ desc=’Everything that the world's corporations are selling now-a-days as "smart" or "intelligent" is actually a mindless human construct. The debunked name should be Artificial Non-Intelligence.’]

  • That Pepsi Commercial

    That Pepsi Commercial

    This nicely written article on Wired says it all: sometimes corporations are so tone-deaf that they manage the impossible: uniting the Internet:

    https://www.wired.com/2017/04/pepsi-ad-internet-response/^

    I am saddened by the fact that Pepsi took a noble message and a beautiful story only to ruin everything by having a script and implementation so utterly disrespectful towards minorities, women and social classes. Pepsi wants to say “we should look beyond social classes”, but instead highlights the ugly differences that exist between the privileged and the other 99%. The commercial is also a rather sad mix of cliché and kitsch.

    Bottom line? It’s bad taste. Just like Pepsi and the rest of the canned sugar industry.

    [ax_meta lnimgurl=’http://mentatul.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/02040-PepsiCommercial-Thumb.jpg’ lnimgw=’250′ lnimgh=’250′ title=’That Pepsi Commercial’ desc=’Pepsi took a noble message and a beautiful story only to ruin everything by having a script and implementation so utterly disrespectful towards minorities, women and social classes.’]