diego's weblog

there and back again

Monthly Archives: June 2016

a billion waterdrops (beyond the last wave)

“So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark — that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.” — Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream, 1972


Just one word. One word from which we can start pulling, as if it was the string we’ve rescued from a mix of ideas that form a confusing ball of yarn behind it. We start to pull.

There’s some systems, or technologies, or services, that these days are being implicitly used as a framework for ideas — as if what we have now all we’ll ever have. Facebook, and the specific social interactions it rewards and punishes, is frequently a thing that is noted as a sort of immovable place where something happened. As if it was Times Square or Deep Space.

This is what I mean:

A mother writes down her thoughts on his son’s birthday, but he’ll never read them. He’d died not long before, of a heroin overdose. Her words are filled with pain, she questions her faith: “Where is the God that is making us all so sad?” she asks.

She posts these thoughts on her dead son’s Facebook page.

Someone replies: “Junkie.”

This is described in a post by Stephanie Wittels Wachs: “The End of Empathy” that you might have already read. The mom is her mother, the son her brother.

She goes on to talk about how in engaging directly with someone online, even someone who’s behaved like a complete knucklehead, the most frequent thing that happens is a softening, perhaps an apology, perhaps, even, a complete change of attitude.

But why?

My own ‘a-ha!’ moment in this regard came, thankfully, in a much lighter situation. A long, long time ago, when I lived in an island far far away — Ireland!! — I wrote a parody abridged script for The Matrix Revolutions that was quickly picked up and shared and read by thousands of people (In 2003, this was a big deal). Within that blast of short lived micro-Internet pseudo-fame, I always remember a particular interaction with one of the first people to comment on it (I had posted that on my weblog, with comments open, those were the days!). This person replied:

Its easy to make fun of something you don’t understand. You did a damn fine job of that.

Which led me to post a lengthy reply which could easily have turned into one of the many essays academics publish about these movies. I went all the way: comparison with other movies and texts, religious themes, even threw in some Plato for good measure. My honor as a nerd had been challenged, I had to reply.

The very first comment on my long reply was from that same guy (Sadly the comments were lost when I migrated away from MovableType a few years ago so you can’t see them in the page). He said, in essence, “Wow, you have really spent a ton of time thinking about this stuff, definitely more than I have, now I realize were coming at this as a loving fan and I appreciate it, thanks mate.” (Ireland, remember?)

But, again: why?

Connection is not communication

Aside from the odd psycho here and there, why is it that so many many otherwise decent, perhaps even nice people appear become trolls online? And why do they revert to being human being if you engage directly?

The digital age has shown our true colors… hmm? We are all jerks until confronted, is that it? And then cowards? Or suddenly reasonable? Or what? Is it Facebook’s fault, or Twitter? or …

Well, yes and no. Yes because these toxic interactions that would otherwisenever happen are happening over those channels, but it’s not their “fault.” It’s just that they are carriers of information. They are indifferent to the semantics of the bits they transmit. They can just as easily be distributing a video of a puppy saving a kitten from drowning as they can be broadcasting a horrifying video of a beheading of an aid worker by some idiot psychopath.

This behavior happens because we have potentially connected everyone to everyone, and it’s happening over a channel that is connecting people without context, without community, without history, without background.

Someone can now reach you but without the cushion and controls and context of a community around that connection, it can’t be a communication, it just can’t. You need to have some idea of who someone is before you can interact with them effectively. Words without a context are meaningless and therefore carry little cost. This is why people (perhaps some with poor impulse control, perhaps other problems, but not always) can run around the Internet threatening others with rape, theft, and murder, and then casually get up from their desk, close their computers, kiss their kids as they finish their cereal, and go to work without a worry in their mind.

They would never do that at their neighborhood meeting. Never! Why? Because there’s community rules. Because they would be ran out of town, or put in jail, or whatever.

But wait! Aren’t social networks communities?

Nope. At least, not necessarily.

What we need is to get into our heads that Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or any other “flat” social networking service are not communities.

Repeat after me. They are not communities. They are not. They. Are. Not. Even a Facebook Page is not a community anymore than a marker attached to a wall on a random street (so that people can write on the wall) is a community.


The Original Facebook Wall: the Wailing Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, they are a utility. Nothing more, nothing less. We use electricity to power a TV, which can they show good things or bad things. We don’t blame the power company because they let us cook some dinner and let someone in our home that turned out to be a jerk.

No, no, no, someone says. You’re talking about my Internet provider, like AT&T, or AOL or whatever. Those jerks. Facebook isn’t a utility! It’s the global consciousness arising from the deepest, purest corners of our shared soul! Everyone can grab someone else’s hand and sing Kumbaya in unison. Come on people…!

(cue the tumbleweeds, rolling across the view).

Interaction needs context

“Flat” one-size-fits-all social spaces like Facebook or MySpace (remember MySpace?) or Friendster (remember Friendster?) or AOL (Remember AOL?!?!) have been heralded one after the other as “the global village”, a “global consciousness”, a global whatever.

This, however, is — to put it technically and delicately — total bullshit. There’s no global village. There’s global reach. The fact that my connections to people can be drawn as arcs that travel across the planet doesn’t mean that my village is the planet, it just means that the people I talk to are dispersed.

AOL, Friendster, MySpace are no longer talked about more because of technological/execution failures rather than model failures. AOL got stuck with modems, but it still generated over 5 BILLION USD in revenue a year (yep). Friendster imploded under load but was revived for a while with electric paddles and if they had managed to hang one I’m sure they’d still be alive, even if just barely. MySpace became a total garbage fire both in terms of performance and content so it couldn’t be the beacon of the world, but it’s still hanging in there.

The reason those services failed are primarily technological. They thought modems would be cool forever. They couldn’t adapt. They couldn’t handle the load. Facebook pulled it off, and it’s no minor feat. But check this out:


AOL Welcome Login Page, 20 Years Ago

Now do this: open your browser and visit facebook.com. Look at the image above. look at the site. Repeat as much as you can stand it. Ok, maybe not that much.

I’m not even going to bother to point out all the overlaps. That’s why we have a word like “obvious.” You have a Facebook account like you have an account with the power company, or like you have with the cable company. Same goes for LinkedIn, but with a different purpose. Or Twitter. Step back and think about the accounts themselves, the services. You don’t “enjoy” belonging to Facebook (early on, when it was exclusive and specific to campuses you did enjoy it, but that actually just reinforces the point that’s coming). Just like you don’t “enjoy” having an account with the electric company, but you have it because that way you can have light, cook, and watch TV and so forth. You are on Facebook because it gives you access to a bunch of other things. Whatsapp and Instagram (short private messages, photos) are also probably in a trajectory to settle as a utility. It’s not a coincidence Facebook bought them.

The point is there have been many attempts at building social utility overlays for the Internet, and through work, luck, evolution and determination we finally got them.


This isn’t a putdown. At all. We need this stuff. We just have to remember that we need it to do something else.

It’s not the electric company’s fault that the movie was terrible

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn… are not “the end”. They’re not the last stage of human communication. They’re not even the beginning. They’re the necessary infrastructure we had to build before we could do all the cool stuff.

That word, “Junkie,” that’s the equivalent of a prank call within Facebook. Not that it’s a prank, but rather that it’s the lack of context that permits its execution and existence.

We need to move past this. We can’t think of Facebook as being responsible for destroying human empathy just as we didn’t think of the phone company as doing that because someone could prank-call you.

The text, the happy icons and the profile photos and everyone having a good time at lunch obscure the fact these are minimum-common-denominator interactions, not insignificant by any means, but not unlike what you’d get if you could be publishing your own little newsletter and sending it to whomever you pleased.

With this infrastructure in place is when we must focus on communities that are meaningful in whichever reality you’re engaging.

How? There’s many ways. Individual reddits (rather than reddit itself) are an example of proto-digital communities. They lack formal tools that communities need to shape rules and behavior, but the best ones create their own ad-hoc versions.

Medium is itself an example of something new that you can build on top of the utilities. Not quite a community, but not quite just a publishing platform either.

Communities can also be built effectively online, leveraging the connections created by the utility networks into well defined social spaces. How? For that, go read “Building Better Social Networks: Beyond Likes, Follows and Hashtags” from Gina Bianchini (co-founder of Ning, and therefore my old boss, so there’s disclosure for you!) who now runs Mightybell. From her article:

We can do better than platforms that require a convoluted combination of hashtags and poorly organized numbers for questions and answers to “have a conversation.” No one should have to work this hard to chat.

Exactly. What that means is that you don’t have to have a conversation in an environment fearing that some random person might appear and start making a mess. Conversely, it also means you’re not always walking on eggshells, you’re not diluting what you say because there’s a context to it that’s provided by the community.

When you have true communities (either in the digital or the real world) the kinds of regular trolling and abuses we were talking about early on simply don’t happen, precisely because it’s a community, not just a communication channel that is indifferent to what it is being used for.

Social networks were one of the waves of the early 21st century. Large-scale digital social interconnections, with maximum coverage and total accessibility (governments permitting…).

For social and digital what comes next is not another wave, but what happens when a wave breaks reaching the shore:

A billion waterdrops.

(reposted from medium)

the fallacy of … tape.

A discussion has emerged in various corners of the Internets regarding a recent photo from Mark Zuckerberg in which someone spotted he (apparently) covers the camera of his laptop, and possibly the mic as well, with tape. (As far as I know, this hasn’t been confirmed, so I’d argue we can’t really know for sure the purpose of that tape).

Perhaps we can start by saying that if your “solution” to a problem is basically something that Homer Simpson has already done (see video above), you’re probably not on the right track.

Regardless, this led to articles like “Mark Zuckerberg Covers His Laptop Camera. You Should Consider It, Too.

John Gruber points out:

I think this is nonsense. Malware that can surreptitiously engage your camera can do all sort of other nefarious things. If you can’t trust your camera, you can’t trust your keyboard either.

I’d go further and say that it is worse than nonsense: it is dangerous nonsense — because it creates a false sense of security.

The problem it “solves” is hilariously low in importance down the list of problems you’d have if malware had taken over your camera without you noticing. 

Because, yes, with the exception of (very rare) highly specialized attack vectors involving specific hardware elements, someone taking over the camera and bypassing low-level mechanisms that control it and the light pretty much guarantees they have full control of your system, including your keyboard, which by the way means they have all of your logins and passwords to all services, local and remote.

“Well, it doesn’t hurt, does it?” someone might say, but I’d argue that it does. It does hurt that this sort of nonsense can be propagated. It’s a bad meme. We should be talking about real security measures, improving software, whatever… except this.

It doesn’t solve the real problem (again, because the real problem will usually be “someone has total control of your computer”) but it doesn’t solve the “problem” it’s trying to solve. Because: how many HD cameras do you think are in a 15-foot radius of that laptop camera? I’d bet a couple of dozen, easily (at various angles, no doubt). Does anyone realistically think that malware that has taken silent, undetected control of a networked system running UNIX is just sitting there twiddling its thumbs and uploading JPEGs to a server somewhere? It’s like some type of bug infestations: if you find them anywhere, chances are they’re already everywhere. 

This is the reality of the world today. Taping over a camera is as much a solution as sticking your head in the sand. Which is to say: none at all.

The universe doesn’t do straight lines

“Everything you’ve learned in school as ‘obvious’ becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There’s not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines.”

– R. Buckminster Fuller (1895–1983)


If you haven’t thought about this before, it’s one of those ideas that generates a special feeling, something you’ve always known but never articulated. The kind of ideas that make you look up into the sky, eyes lost in the distance and say “Yeah, that’s right,” while you smile and nod slightly.

It also lends itself to pseudo-myth busting: Of course there are straight lines! Here, let me show you, after which we are look at a high-altitude image of salt flats, deserts, rocks, and any number of other things that appear to have reasonably straight lines here and there at different resolutions. But there’s no “reasonably straight” in math, geometry, topology, and that’s what we’re talking about.

Even the most ubiquitous, inescapable “line” in nature, the skyline, or horizon, is not a line at all, but a curve of such diameter that it can’t be discerned by the naked eye unless you’re, well, flying.

But… why? There’s no law of physics or biology expressly against straight lines, 90-degree angles, or perfect geometric shapes. DNA is a construct of incredible complexity. Surely a straight line wouldn’t be a problem if it had an advantage.

Thinking about it from an evolutionary/natural selection perspective it becomes clear pretty quickly that there’s little advantage to something being perfectly straight compared to anything “reasonably” straight (in the few cases in which you need it). On the other hand, “perfection” has a very clear cost.

Consider — Anything that can bend will eventually bend and cease being straight if that was its initial state. Therefore, the only way for something to remain straight for a long time with all the environmental uncertainty created by nature is for it to be extremely rigid, not flexible. So you end up with something that will not bend but that, no matter how strong, will have a point at which it breaks.

Flexibility matters. Bending is better than breaking, a fact that becomes a problem for humans since our bones get stronger as we grow, but the strength translates into less flexibility and therefore more of a chance of breaking outright.

It seems logical then that a perfectly straight line isn’t a thing you’d want in your evolutionary tree.

Speaking of trees.

Trees are interesting when you think about them in terms of construction. When we (humans, that is) started building really big things, we needed the help not only of straight lines but also of the simplest convex polyhedron possible, the tetrahedron, aka pyramid. (Even though the pyramids humans tend to build are not tetrahedrons, since they generally use a square, rather than triangular, polygonal base, the point remains.)


It’s taken us 8,000 years to figure out how to build high without building wide. Meanwhile, many trees grow tall enough and strong enough that humans can live in them, and yet their weight distribution is not unlike a pyramid standing on its tip, supported by the root structure, which while smaller in mass is generally larger in surface covered. (The triangular areas I marked in the images above reference mass, not surface.) The tensile strength and toughness of the materials used matters a lot of course, but so does what you’re trying to use them for.

If you’re just getting started at the whole civilization thing, and you’re going to build a hut to protect yourself from the elements, or a small vehicle to carry stuff, it is better to use artificial constructs (straight lines, circles, etc) because they make calculations easier, it makes reproduction easier, and it makes verification easier. Early on, at small scale, knowledge can transferred verbally, but as soon as you start writing things down, simple geometries become even more important. You could carry the design to another city, and the master builder that came up with it wouldn’t be able to verify your construction. The certainty of mathematics becomes a necessity, and the simpler the design, the simpler the concepts behind it, the easier it is not only to propagate but also to verify.

For us, then, up until well past the point when we’ve moved beyond simple construction capabilities, it pays off to expend the additional energy necessary to approach mathematical perfection. The advantages are many. The time and energy invested in, say, turning a tree trunk into lumber is acceptable not only because it is easier to use, but also because it’s easier to measure, partition, buy, sell. This, in turn, makes markets and therefore whole economies function more effectively and efficiently as well.


787 Dreamliner Wing Flex Test (source: Wired)

As you advance in building your civilization you start to see that evolving past a certain point both requires and enables flexibility in how and what you create. It’s not just about architecture, or mechanical engineering. Clothing, for example, also had to pass through a period in which mass-production constraints around what you could deliver resulted in straight lines everywhere. Think back at the sharp edges and angles in suits and dresses of the late 1940s and 50s, when mass production of those items became commonplace.


Now, Betty & Don probably aren’t fooling around with mass produced stuff,but manufacturing capabilities invariably affect design and therefore fashion — even for high end goods since, after all, they are part of the same ecosystem.

Attack of the rectangles

Now, this has all been very entertaining so far but my point is really (you guessed it) about software.

Straight lines are easier in software, too. Software interfaces have been somewhat stuck in the same era of rigidity as architecture, engineering, and even clothing were stuck in until the very end of the 20th century, when new processes and materials allowed us to start creating strong, bendable, curved surfaces.

Take a step back and look at your phone, or laptop screen. Start counting rectangles, or, as we could also call them, boxes.


There are boxes everywhere! Invisible boxes contain other boxes all over the place.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying boxes are evil or anything like that. Rectangles are fine, they’re our friends. They’re cool. In the 80s, I think it was even hip to be square for a while. But we’ve become overly reliant on them. We use them as a crutch. Instead of trying to figure out how to make something work for a specific task, we use rectangles everywhere, because we know they work, even if they aren’t perfect.

This matters because rigidity propagates directly from the interface into our thoughts. It is not the same to have an open white space to write in than to be given a small box and a 140 characters. It is not.

In that vein, I don’t see it as a coincidence that there’s so many great text editors around that focus on eliminating everything but what you’re typing.

Circular/Rotating dials are better than vertical knobs because the human hand has more precision on radial movements than on linear movements. Our extremities are well adapted to rotating and sliding along curves, but everything in our computers is stuck within the vertical and horizontal confines of 2D cartesian coordinate space. With touch on devices (and 3D) we can create interfaces that are both more natural, organic, and can be better adapted ergonomically to how we operate in the real world. The moment you add any kind of spatial analysis using IR and so forth (e.g., Kinect, Leap) significant vertical and horizontal movements, while definitely useful, become secondary to the expressive power of the hand.

Some calendaring systems have now added margins around events to account for travel time, and if you happen to allow enough of your information to be constantly provided to a server, they can help find routes in advance, be smarter about alarms, and so forth.

The event itself though, fundamentally, is still some text in a box.


To begin with, no ‘event’ of any kind that you put in a calendar ever fits in a box. Aha! You’d say — Many calendaring systems let you add text, attachments, and locations, and change colors, and so forth.

But you just put those things in a box, metaphorically, and literally, as far as the interface is concerned.

If you open the event you get even more boxes within boxes that contain some of these files and information, much of which is also in rectangle form.

And when you’re done, as the clock marks 1 pm, that box remains forever frozen to collect digital dust, exactly the same as it was when it started.

Finding meaning and purpose in actions

But that’s not what the event is, is it?

Whatever it is, it’s fluid. Maybe it doesn’t exactly start at that time. Maybe it doesn’t exactly end at that time. Can’t software take note of that?

Have you ever been to any kind of event, meeting, presentation, appointment, that could be properly described by the boundaries of a box or a rectangle? Something that starts here and ends there? Ever?

Say it was a meeting. What about the things that happened during the event? Why can’t you keep track of the links you loaded, the documents seen, changes made right there?

Phone calls made?

People that came and went? We had a list of participants, but we got Joe to come in and help us with something because, duh, he’s actually the one in charge of…

Right? See what I mean?

Maybe you can’t say exactly what shape all of that stuff takes, but it sure as hell doesn’t feel like it fits in anything that has right angles and a preset width and height.

Because N3xt

These ideas are obviously important to me and fundamental to how I’ve approached thinking about N3xt, but this isn’t about one system. It’s about trying on new ways to think about what we build, how we build it, and for what purpose.

We need to expand how we think about data and information to the point of challenging the modeling, storage and processing of long-standing fundamental constructs like pages, folders, lists, and so on, on “clients”. It’s a change that’s already been happening in the “backend world” for a while now, and it’s long overdue on the other side. It’s time we move past from using metaphors and concepts anchored in a paper-centric, office-centric, container-centric view of the world. It’s time we let go of linear organizational schemes. Lists are great for some things, but surely they don’t have to be the foundation for everything.

All the major online services rely on incredibly complex infrastructures in which data exists and interacts in a virtual world that is so… removed from what happens when you squeeze it all into http://… and a grid of pixels that it might as well be in another universe. Backend filesystems at scale stopped looking like filesystems a while ago, just to take one example. It’s time to bring some of the magic pixie dust over to the other side and see what happens.

We also have to consistently push against rigid structures to create interfaces based on grids and boxes and lists and menus. We have lived with the same fundamental ideas for almost 50 years now, since the great Douglas Engelbart cracked open the fire pits of invention with theMother of All Demos. Desktops, files, folders, pages, “cabinets”, a digital approximation of the American Corporation in the 50s and 60s.

We’ve got the tools. We’ve got WebGL, and 3D frameworks, and inputs and sensors up the wazoo.

People aren’t going to be confused or terrified or anything like that. People are constantly adapting to new ways to interact, and we now have a generation that has grown up without knowing what a dialtone is.

In client software in particular, layers are closely linked, more interdependent than in backend software. In the server world hardware homogeneity and network layers actually help a bit in creating more elastic relationships between endpoints — so you can have something amazing likePresto, which gives you new possibilities: an aging squirrel in a wheelchair (SQL) strapped to the nose of a Space Orbiter (Presto) which can turn various toxic-otherwise-unusable solid and liquid fuels (in my metaphor, all the various horrible data sources that you can tap into… I’m looking at you, Oracle-over-JDBC) into precisely guided propulsion that will get you into orbit and back, so the squirrel gets to see space and we get to do something useful with all that horrible toxic stuff while still actually using something cool and shiny and moving things forward in between the two.

On the client, you can’t quite do that. The coupling is too close, the constraints too tight, so if your data model is literally a SQLlite table with 1,000 rows and columns, and you actually use row-access mechanisms and even, God help you, normalized table structures, then it is kind of inevitable that what’s going to show up on screen will look like that. And if it doesn’t, if you’re smushing up the 1,000 rows into a neural network that will give you the ONE row you need and display just that, then why the hell are you storing and fetching stuff using SQLlite? Why not just have a blob of 1,000 other blobs that you read and write atomically, along with whatever you preserve of the neural net between runs?


This doesn’t mean that we have to throw everything away and start from scratch.

Not what I’m saying.

When I see something like what Microsoft proposed here for HoloLens, I have to concentrate pretty hard keep myself from hitting my head against the wall repeatedly.

Because while what we already have is ok at what it does, we just have to let go of the notion that we can keep juicing it forever.

What I’m saying is that we’ll rethink how we approach everything new, and, sure, some of the old stuff might be replaced, but that’s not the point.

So for a quick glance at your watch, just some text that says “Event, 1 hr, starts in 5m” may be fine. You could even have a little colored rectangle around it.

But back in our growing mixed reality world, dealing with ambient sensors, phones, holographic lenses and wall displays … a BB-8 replica that rolls around the room beeping and whistling quietly…. and supercomputers in our pockets, in our desks, and in the infrastructure all around us, the only straight lines should be there only when we create them in our minds.

Just like the horizon.

(cross-posted to medium)


The worst things in life inevitably blindside you.

Inevitably. I’d even say “by definition” but I can’t quite bring myself to do it since any kind of close analysis reveals it as one of those things that sounds good but is actually bleh when you think about it for more than two seconds. Yeah, you read that right: bleh. You know what I mean.

The best things don’t. The best moments are invariably the pinnacle of a metaphorical mountain. The best things in life build up, requiring an enormous amount of effort and care, and when they’re done sometimes it’s easy to forget that they’re good because of that and that’s something we also fuck up frequently around here, but that’s not what I’m talking about today.

What I’m talking about is the surprise. Yes, you will be surprised, guaranteed.

You know why? Because if you have a shred of survival instinct and you see something terrible coming, you move out of the way. We do this constantly, without even thinking. We are continuously patching stuff up so it doesn’t blow up in our face. We fix the leaks. We prop up the structure so it doesn’t come crashing down on us right this second, because right this second I have to finish a project and then later I got to shop for some groceries, and honey would you please pick up my prescriptions while you’re at the store?

If you see it coming, you move out of the way. Which leaves you with the things you don’t see coming.

Blindsided, always. Sometimes, literally, as in truck-unexpectedly-crashing-into-the-side-of-your-car-blindside-you, sometimes not.

I’d even say that the worst of the worst things are also the ones that look insignificant at first glance. The literal truck in the previous paragraph, for example, is pretty bad, but it’s also something that will have a fairly straightforward resolution — assume a happy ending and let’s say it’s just a few stitches, a visit to the shop, and a lot of haggling with the insurance company. You didn’t see it coming, but you can see it going, so to speak. The path out of the disaster zone is clear. It’s the advantage of major catastrophes that we can see so clearly that we’re severely fucked up that we are forced to do something about it. We simply have no choice.

Those moments though, when something happens or when you are told something truly awful that hit you as if you were hit physically, moments that feel like something breaks inside you. A fracture in your soul. And, in many cases, like a fracture, it can be ignored for a while, disregarded:”it’s bad, but not that bad really, right?”


I’ve come to realize that defining that moment is important because if you’re going to find a way to move forward from any situation, particularly a bad one, is to make some things end.

And the only way for something to end is for it to have begun. Which means you have to identify the beginning.

There was a phone call, early evening I think. I was in the kitchen. That for some reason I remember vividly. Phone rings, check caller ID: wow, there’s someone I haven’t talked to …. or even thought about …. in quite a while…

A minute later the call was over and I didn’t know what to do. I couldn’t go to the hospital. Couldn’t. Many reasons, all of them probably bad, is what I’m sure I’d think now if I remembered any of them. Many reasons, many. I was probably in shock, whatever that is, because I just put the phone down on the kitchen counter and I just went about my business, continuing along the path of mundane activity that I was already set on for that Friday night.

I’ve spent some time trying to decide whether it was that one moment or something earlier that was truly the first rock of the avalanche. There’s some pretty ugly stuff about 14 months prior that nearly broke me, but I managed to pull out, somehow. I spent a little more than a year in a fairly positive trajectory of some sort, flying uncertain, but gaining speed and then when this happened it was like the freeze frame in movies when they zoom into something, cut to total silence and you hear a metallic sound or a break and for a second nothing happens and then… BOOOOOOOOOOM!

So: the phone call is what I’ve settled on.


I didn’t know it then, but it was at that moment that the edifice of my life had begun to collapse in slow motion. Nothing felt right. Like one of those warning signs you read or hear about in movies… earthquakes, typhoons, hurricanes. Warning signs that go beyond the rational or the known. The air around you feels heavy, charged. Something is coming.

That moment.

Tiny rocks, rolling down the hill.

A tocsin. (not a typo).

It would take a little over a year from that point until it would all finally crash on top of my head — and quite spectacularly I might add. I’m someone that doesn’t trust easily but during these last few years I’ve made an effort and every time I’ve reached out the universe has lashed out back at me viciously. The Rach 3 is easier than this.

Had I played a part? Self-fulfilling prophecies and all that? Maybe, but definitely not all the time. I’ve kept trying. So far every time I give it a shot, it’s turned out badly. Whatever mistakes I’ve made, I’ve paid for them, and then some. I’ve been crawling out of the rubble in darkness for a while now.

I’m stepping out now, but I can look back at the ruins that will soon lose sight of me because I know when it began.

1,263 days ago.

It ends today.


 What’s n3xt? Let me start by saying that if you’re looking for a 30-second answer, or a quick pitch, or some shortcut to a category (“it’s like Tinder for piano tuners!”), or something along those lines, you will probably be disappointed.

For new products or technologies there’s this pervasive idea that if people can’t figure out what your thing does in 30 seconds, then you’re toast. Done. Or that if you can’t explain why something is valuable in a single sentence you haven’t distilled the concept enough.

That’s true in some areas. There’s value in brevity, sure. But brevity can also be a straightjacket. It forces us to use shortcuts, makes us dependent on analogies and pre-existing categories. It creates a rigid set of constraints that limit the possible complexity of the message and subsequent discourse.

I understand that this is sort of breaking “the rules”, such as they are and that in doing so I might not be able to reach some people. That’s ok. I do this not for novelty or to ‘be original’ or whatever, but rather because I believe that complexity isn’t a vice and if we end up only communicating ideas that can fit in a bumper sticker it will become increasingly difficult to tackle the challenges that lay in front of us. I also believe that the extra effort and time will be worth it.

So, with that in mind…

Bits are fusing with atoms. Sensors and screens are proliferating, and along with them storage, networking and compute power.

Devices are becoming more specialized in both form and function.

And the world in which pixelated rectangles are the only pathway to our data will be gone.

In time, applications as we know them today will no longer exist. The Facebook News Feed is a great example of what the post-app world looks like in two dimensions.

In it we don’t see apps.

We see photos, messages, likes. Data plus context.


N3xt is software that runs on personal devices — phones, tablets, laptops, TVs, etc. It creates a personal mesh network that makes it easier to share data between devices, and it can expand outward to create circles of trust with peers connected not only based on geography or network topology but also real relationships between people. It can consume data from different sources and aggregate it in a way that can only be done client-side, creating context and connections across disparate services and data sources that would not be feasible otherwise. Leveraging context to show only the data that’s relevant allows us to break away from one-dimensional navigational mechanisms like lists or scrolling that become necessary when, unable to determine what is important, we just present a whole list of items that only might be.

Thanks for taking the time to read this far. Much more will be coming soon. In the meantime, you can follow me @diegodoval and @n3xtapp or send questions via email.

PS: www.whatsn3xt.com will be expanding. Not much going on there right now. I’ll talk about why in more detail in a future post.

(cross-posted to my medium.)

%d bloggers like this: