Billionaire Musk releases all Tesla patents to help save the Earth
In a blog post, the colorful billionaire founder of Tesla promised the company “will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.”

SAN FRANCISCO – Elon Musk announced Thursday he had released all of the electric carmaker Tesla’s patents, as part of an effort to fight climate change.

In a blog post, the colorful billionaire founder of Tesla promised the company “will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.”

It was a remarkable move in an industry where the smallest idea or seed of invention is carefully guarded to protect its monetary value. 

And it in fact came on the same day US prosecutors charged a Chinese national with stealing secrets from Apple’s self-driving vehicle project.

“Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport,” Musk said. “If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”

In fact Musk said he was now skeptical of patents which too often only served “to stifle progress” and helped enrich giant corporations and lawyers rather than inventors. Read Full Article Here


In this video we have three tips to achieve success and improvement as shown by Elon Musk! In five hundred years, we may look back and say, “Elon Musk was the single most influential person of our entire century.” He has been able to do more in his 46 years than most of us could hope to do in ten lifetimes and yes, part of that is because Elon is incredibly smart and he works incredibly hard. …and we’re so hot up; we had just one computer so the website was up during the day and I was coding at night. …work hard like it mean every waking hour; that’s the thing I would say if your particular if you’re starting a company. But working 100 hours a week still only puts you at two-and-a-half times as much as the average employee.

And most geniuses do not make the international impact that Elon has. In fact, the man with the highest IQ in the world, Chris Langan is a bouncer. So while smarts and work ethic are critical to Elon’s success, in order to impact the world, you simply have to be able to influence other people; there’s no way around it. That includes employees investors and the public at large and Elon Musk is unique here because on this channel, we can normally point to a leader’s ability to nail a public speech.

Deep in the Himalayas, on the border between China and India, lies the Kingdom of Bhutan, which has pledged to remain carbon neutral for all time. In this illuminating talk, Bhutan’s Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay shares his country’s mission to put happiness before economic growth and set a world standard for environmental preservation.


Why The Future Is In The Hands Of Individuals, Not Corporations

The power to innovate is falling into the hands of hyper-talented individuals.

Traditionally, the largest and most successful corporations were also the largest employers. Manufacturing and retail businesses required factories, warehouses, logistics and plenty of manpower, all working in harmony to deliver their product or service. Building this capability took years, requiring significant capital investments. Thus, competitors were few and far between, and disruption was painfully slow to make a dent on existing hierarchies.


But with the rise of technology, the model of success has gradually evolved, with businesses requiring fewer and fewer resources and employees to make an impact. Whatsapp is the perfect example; already worth $19bn with only 55 employees. And as we enter the next wave of tech innovation, we’ll increasingly see power transfer away from traditional ‘corporations’ and fall into the hands of smaller groups of highly skilled and hyper-talented individuals.

More, but increasingly complex opportunities

There has never been a more exciting time to be an entrepreneur, with emerging technologies bringing an unprecedented number of opportunities for innovation across platforms and software, with minimal physical resources and infrastructure required. We’re only now beginning to understand the potential of tools such as AI, machine learning, AR, VR, and the Internet of Things, and how they can be combined to create breakthroughs across a whole range of industries and problems.

Yet, identifying and then maximizing these complex and increasingly technical opportunities requires equally specialist knowledge and skills, along with the ability to respond rapidly to new innovations and competition. Understanding and manipulating the most cutting-edge tools requires the best brains, not to mention the drive, resilience and vision to identify the ideas with the most potential. The barriers to entry are rising, placing the power in the hands of those highly capable individuals, who are no longer reliant on building large organizations or physical assets to realize their ambitions.

Size doesn’t equal power

Corporations have always struggled to innovate, lacking the natural agility and flexibility of smaller organizations. However, as we enter this new age of innovation, it is becoming even tougher for the incumbents to keep up with the pace of change and increasing complexity, even with all their manpower and their abundance of cash lying dormant on the balance sheet.

What these big businesses are lacking is the ability to harness the power of the most talented individuals, by providing an environment where they can thrive. Radical change needs mavericks and risk takers who in turn need the freedom and ability to innovate; not be put in a straight-jacket and told to behave and operate according to corporate rules. The most extreme innovators don’t fit into old-fashioned, archaic organizational structures, which means it’s very difficult for big businesses to attract, integrate and retain these individuals.

Investing in these most cutting-edge technologies is also extremely risky, and corporations are too afraid of making mistakes and too busy covering their backs to take a serious punt on ideas that might not build any value. Innovation requires agility and radical thinking, which is impossible in an environment that is paralyzed by politics, an aversion to change and worries of cannibalising its existing revenue streams and product lines. Their only real hopes are spin-offs, joint ventures and acquisitions of the most talented individuals – not in-house innovation.  

Supporting the individual

Those who succeed in the next wave of innovation will be those individuals and small teams with the technical skills and a ‘knack’ for understanding the end vision, along with the freedom and agility to explore the unknown. But to have this freedom, these individuals must be adequately supported with resources, networks and capital to take the necessary risks and follow their instincts.

Read Full Article


Kjartan Rist


I write about the rapidly evolving VC and start-up sector in Europe
From 2 University Degrees to 20 Billion Dollars – This is Elon Musk’s Ultimate Advice for high school students and college graduates. Can’t find a job? Neither could billionaire Elon Musk.


The Andromeda galaxy and everything else in the known universe, including us, could be part of an advanced simulation. Indeed, this is the most probable scenario, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said on comedian Joe Rogan’s podcast on Sept. 7, 2018.
Credit: S. Ozime

Elon Musk thinks we’re all probably trapped in a “Matrix”-like pseudo existence.

The universe is 13.8 billion years old, so any civilizations that may have arisen throughout the cosmos have had loads and loads of time to hone their technological know-how, the SpaceX founder and CEO explained early this morning (Sept. 7) during a long, wide-ranging and very entertaining appearance on comedian Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience.”

“If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then games will be indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will end. One of those two things will occur,” Musk said. “Therefore, we are most likely in a simulation, because we exist.” [13 Ways to Hunt Intelligent Aliens]

“I think most likely — this is just about probability — there are many, many simulations,” he added. “You might as well call them reality, or you could call them multiverse.”

The “substrate” on which these simulations are running, whatever it may be, is probably quite boring, at least compared to the simulations themselves, Musk further told Rogan.

“Why would you make a simulation that’s boring? You’d make a simulation that’s way more interesting than base reality,” Musk said, citing the video games and movies that humanity makes, which are “distillation[s] of what’s interesting about life.”

The billionaire entrepreneur is far from alone in this interpretation; a number of physicists, cosmologists and philosophers find the simulation hypothesis compelling. If even one advanced alien civilization with a predilection for creating simulations has ever arisen out there, the reasoning goes, then it could theoretically pop off thousands — or perhaps even millions or billions — of “fake” universes. And it would be hard for the inhabitants of these digital realms to figure out the truth, because all the evidence they could gather would likely be planted by the creators. 

Indeed, the simulation idea is one of many possible explanations for the famous Fermi paradox, which basically asks, “Where is everybody?” (“Everybody” being aliens, of course.)

Read Full Article and Learn More w/ Video




October 2, 2018

Google and Facebook are teaming up to make each company’s artificial intelligence technologies work better together.


The two companies said Tuesday that an unspecified number of engineers are collaborating to make Facebook’s open source machine learning PyTorch framework work with Google’s custom computer chips for machine learning, dubbed Tensor Processing Units, or TPU. The collaboration marks one of the rare instances of the technology rivals working together on joint tech projects.


“Today, we’re pleased to announce that engineers on Google’s TPU team are actively collaborating with core PyTorch developers to connect PyTorch to Cloud TPUs,” Google Cloud director of product management Rajen Sheth wrote in a blog post. “The long-term goal is to enable everyone to enjoy the simplicity and flexibility of PyTorch while benefiting from the performance, scalability, and cost-efficiency of Cloud TPUs.”

Facebook product manager for artificial intelligence Joseph Spisak said in a separate blog post that “Engineers on Google’s Cloud TPU team are in active collaboration with our PyTorch team to enable support for PyTorch 1.0 models on this custom hardware.”


Google first debuted its TPUs in 2016 during its annual developer conference, and pitched them as a more efficient way for companies and researchers to power their machine-learning software projects. The search giant sells access to its TPUs via its cloud computing business instead of selling the chips individually to customers like Nvidia, whose graphics processing units, or GPUs, are popular with researchers working on deep learning projects.


Artificial intelligence technologies like deep learning have grown in popularity over the years with tech giants like Google and Facebook that use the technologies to create software applications that can automatically do tasks like recognize images in photos.

As more businesses explore machine learning technology, companies like Google, Facebook, and others have created their own AI software frameworks, essentially coding tools, intended to make it easier for developers to create their own machine-learning powered software. These companies have also offered these AI frameworks for free in an open source model in order to popularize them with coders.

Read and Learn More

Glyphosate killing bees
Scientists found Glyphosate harmed honeybees and may impact other insects, like bumblebees

Bees could be dying as a result of exposure some of Britain’s most popular weed killers, new research suggests.

Scientists in the US found evidence that glyphosate , the active ingredient in Roundup and many other brands, may be contributing to the decline of honey bees.

Glyphosate herbicides are the most widely used herbicide in UK agriculture with 5.4 million acres of farmland across Britain treated with the chemical annually.

The study, by the University of Texas, showed worker bees exposed to the glyphosate lose beneficial gut bacteria, which is likely to leave them vulnerable to infections.

Read More

Surveillance Economy
How Far Can the Surveillance Economy Go?



Companies want access to more and more of your personal data — from where you are to what’s in your DNA. Can they unlock its value without triggering a privacy backlash?


Three years ago the satirical website The Onion ran an article with the headline “Woman Stalked Across 8 Websites by Obsessed Shoe Advertisement.” Everywhere she went online, this fictional consumer saw the same ad. “The creepiest part,” she says in the story, “is that it even seems to know my shoe size.” The piece poked fun at an increasingly common — if clumsy — digital marketing technique. But today its gentle humor seems almost quaint. Technology has advanced far beyond the browser cookies and retargeting that allow ads to follow us around the internet. Smartphones now track our physical location and proximity to other people — and, as researchers recently discovered, can even do so when we turn off location services. We can disable the tracking on our web browsers, but our digital fingerprints can still be connected across devices, enabling our identities to be sleuthed out. Home assistants like Alexa listen to our conversations and, when activated, record what we’re saying. A growing range of everyday things — from Barbie dolls to medical devices — connect to the internet and transmit information about our movements, our behavior, our preferences, and even our health. A dominant web business model today is to amass as much data on individuals as possible and then use it or sell it — to target or persuade, reward or penalize. The internet has become a surveillance economy.

What’s more, the rise of data science has made the information collected much more powerful, allowing companies to build remarkably detailed profiles of individuals. Machine learning and artificial intelligence can make eerily accurate predictions about people using seemingly random data. Companies can use data analysis to deduce someone’s political affiliation or sexuality or even who has had a one-night stand. As new technologies such as facial recognition software and home DNA testing are added to the tool kit, the surveillance done by businesses may soon surpass that of the 20th century’s most invasive security states.

Illustration by Michael McQuaid

The obvious question is, How could consumers let this happen? As a behavioral scientist, I study how people sometimes act against their own interests. One issue is that “informed consent” — the principle companies use as permission to operate in this economy — is something of a charade. Most consumers are either unaware of the personal information they share online or, quite understandably, unable to determine the cost of sharing it — if not both.

It’s true that consumers do gain some benefits from all the data gathering, such as more meaningful advertising and better customer service, pricing, and potentially even access to credit. But companies urgently need to find a way to balance the benefits with privacy protection. Consumer advocates are raising alarm bells about invasive digital practices. Public outcries ensue each time a scandal hits the headlines, whether it involves Equifax’s loss of sensitive personal information about tens of millions of people or Russian operatives using social media to manipulate the votes of Americans. Internet privacy experts who not too long ago were viewed as cranks on the fringe now testify before Congress and headline conferences. In Europe major legislation to protect user privacy has already passed. We’re starting to see signs of a widespread “techlash,” which could have profound implications for firms that use consumers’ data. It’s probably no coincidence that Facebook saw its valuation plummet roughly 20% after it publicly suggested it might scale back on some data collection.


At the same time, consumers don’t reward companies for offering better privacy protection. Privacy-enhancing technologies have not been widely adopted. People are generally unwilling to pay for privacy-enhancing technologies and even if they do, will pay only modest amounts. Though some might take this as evidence that people simply don’t care about privacy, I’ve come to a different conclusion: People do care, but as I’ll explain, several factors impede their ability to make wise choices.

If both sides continue on these diverging trajectories, the surveillance economy may be headed for a market failure. The good news is that policymakers can help. The first step is to understand how people make decisions about the privacy of their personal information and how they can be induced to overshare.


Let’s be frank: People are bad at making decisions about their private data. They misunderstand both costs and benefits. Moreover, natural human biases interfere with their judgment. And whether by design or accident, major platform companies and data aggregators have structured their products and services to exploit those biases, often in subtle ways.

Impatience. People tend to overvalue immediate costs and benefits and underweight those that will occur in the future. They want $9 today rather than $10 tomorrow. On the internet, this tendency manifests itself in a willingness to reveal personal information for trivial rewards. Free quizzes and surveys are prime examples. Often administered by third parties, they are a data-security nightmare, but many people can’t resist them. For instance, on the popular “real age” website, people divulge a large amount of sensitive health information in exchange for the immediate “benefit” of knowing whether their “biological age” is older or younger than their calendar age. Consumers gain zero financial reward for such disclosures. They may be vaguely aware of the potential costs of providing such information (at its extreme, higher insurance premiums down the road), but because those downsides are vague and in the future, they’re disregarded in exchange for a few minutes of fun.

Impatience also prevents us from adopting privacy controls. In one experiment, people who were setting up a digital wallet were offered a service that would secure (that is, encrypt) their purchase transaction data. Adding the service took a few additional steps, but only a quarter of people successfully went through them. The vast majority were unwilling to trivially inconvenience themselves by following a onetime simple process in order to protect their data from abuse down the road.

Data “transactions” are often structured so that the benefits of disclosure are immediate, tangible, and attractive, while the costs are delayed and more amorphous — and in these situations, our impatience tilts us toward disclosure. Mobile credit-card stations, for instance, email you receipts and make transactions fast and paperless. But the costs of companies’ capturing your email address and other personal information come later. Sensitive data, such as your name, demographics, and location, is amassed and shared or sold, and in all likelihood you are eventually barraged with targeted marketing. Although some of those ads may be welcome, others may be annoying or intrusive. And some fear that in the future consumer data may even be used in more-impactful ways, such as credit score calculations — and possibly lead to discriminatory “digital redlining.”

Read Full Article and Learn More

Warren Buffett: Market Collapse will be on YOU
Warren Buffett: Market Collapse will be on YOU! By: Andrew Moran September 18, 2018 Articles, Economic Affairs


It has been a decade since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, triggering a financial crisis unseen since the era of flappers, speakeasies, and Keepin’ Cool with Coolidge. The Great Recession came to an end in 2009, meaning that we are nine years into the current bull market, which is one of the longest in U.S. history. While the current economy appears to be on fire, another recession – or worse – is an inevitability, one that will be blamed on President Donald Trump, not his predecessor or successor.

Recently, the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, spoke with CNBC about the decade anniversary of the fall of Lehman Brothers. He also delved into a wide panoply of financial subjects, forecasting that a financial crisis is nigh. But he made one head scratching meditation that was rather interesting; everyone’s favorite billionaire averred that John Smith and Jane Doe cause bubbles to form, explaining:

“People start being interested in something because it’s going up, not because they understand it or anything else. But the guy next door, who they know is dumber than they are, is getting rich and they aren’t. And their spouse is saying can’t you figure it out, too? It is so contagious. So that’s a permanent part of the system.”

It is difficult to argue with a billionaire who has made tens of thousands of people rich. That said, what he is describing is a symptom, not the cause, of the pecuniary disease. The real cause of the asset bubbles is the Federal Reserve, not your irksome next-door neighbor who acquires a new luxury vehicle every so often because he purchased FAANG stocks or Tesla shares a couple of years ago.

A Bubble In Everything

Right now, most markets are flourishing. It seems like the only sector of the economy that isn’t booming is the world of commodities, particularly of the metal variety. Everyone is getting rich, from the Wall Street executive to the busboy at your local family diner to your 95-year-old grandmother. And that is what’s concerning Buffett.

It is true that many markets are in a bubble, either one that continues to swell or one that is beginning to deflate. The most obvious one is the stock market as most equities are posting all-time highs. But once you begin to look beyond equities, you start to notice a dangerous trend: The fundamentals of most markets are not sound.

Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev

In 2008, Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev purchased Paul Gauguin’s “Te Faire La Maison” for $85 million. The fertilizer mogul put the artwork on the auction block in March 2017, but he only garnered $25 million, resulting in a 74% loss. Unfortunately for Rybolovlev, that wasn’t one-time incident. In the last few years, he had started to sell pieces of his $2 billion vintage art collection, enduring a $100 million loss – and counting.

And it isn’t just Rybolovlev who is witnessing his investments crumble. A couple of years ago, there was an immense correction in the international art market. In 2016, Christie’s auction house experienced a 17% sales drop to $5.4 billion. Ditto for Sotheby’s, which reported a 27% decline, falling to $4.9 billion.

Another booming market that is going through a correction stage? Vintage automobiles.

It seems that after years of double-digit growth, classic cars have hit the brakes as their price-tags are no longer going through the roof. For instance, the value of classic Jaguars and Porsches surged as much as 47% in 2013, but average prices rose a tepid 1% in 2016.

The U.S. real estate market is in a housing bubble 2.0. It has all the hallmarks of the 2006 housing crisis:

  • Investors and speculators represented 35% of new home sales in 2016.
  • Banks are gradually offering zero-down mortgages.
  • Mortgage lenders are cutting down their credit standards.
  • Homeowners – primarily of the millennial demographic – are tapping their equity.
  • Foreclosures and delinquency rates are on the rise once again.

If you’re a perma-bear or a goldbug, then you’re probably hoping for a bubble in gold soon.

Blame The Fed

So, bubbles in vintage art, classic cars, and houses. Who’s to blame? It might seem easy to pass the buck onto your annoying neighbors, but the real culprit is the U.S. central bank.

Whenever a bubble forms, it is because the central bank has started to expand the money supply. A rapid increase in the growth trends of the money supply is then followed by a substantial jump in asset prices. This has been the norm since the end of the last recession. Then-Fed Chair Ben Bernanke turned on the printing presses and facilitated the flood of cash into a plethora of asset classes without any savings. His successor, Janet Yellen, wasn’t any better, creating $3 trillion in new money in a four-year span.

The bubble pops when money growth slows, and the bubble cannot be sustained with present levels. The M2 money supply data suggests the Eccles Building is still running the printing presses, though it has slumped over the last two months.

That said, it can be difficult to ascertain when the next bubble will pop and the good times will turn into bad times. What we do know is that the bull market still has some legs in it without a significant slowdown in sight.

Despite what Buffett contends, asset bubbles are not formed by the jealousy of your obnoxious neighbor’s success. They are developed through the Fed’s money-printing schemes.

No wonder why President Donald Trump demands Powell to print money and keep interest rates low.

Learn More Here