• Why Earth’s History Appears So Miraculous
    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-earth-s-history-appears-so-miraculous

    Though the end of the universe is typically thought of as a slow unraveling in the far future—the eternal dissipation into darkness after our brief springtime, leading to a cold, empty epoch that will stretch into forever—the universe could also end violently, Aguirre says, and at any time.

    “So there are various fields that permeate space,” he began. “The electromagnetic field is a common one. The electron field, the proton field, the Higgs field—these are all fields that exist everywhere. And when we have empty space what we really mean by that is that there are no excitations of these fields. So an electron is like an excitation of the electron field, and when we take all the electrons away, the field is still there. We say that it’s in its vacuum state. But a vacuum state is not necessarily completely stable. It’s the state that you get if you take away all the electrons, but it might still have some energy associated with it. And that energy level could, in principle, be different, or lower. In fact, there’s no particularly good reason to think that the vacuum that we’re in now is the lowest-possible vacuum state in terms of energy. And there are actually pretty good reasons to think that it’s not.”

    He started laughing nervously. I didn’t understand why, but would go on to learn that if the vacuum state spontaneously dropped to some new energy level the laws of physics would go berserk and the universe as we know it would be over.

    “It would start out as some sort of point-like event somewhere in the universe that would then expand at the speed of light and just kind of destroy everything in a sphere,” Aguirre said. “So as soon as that bubble passed over us we would then be in some other state of the laws of physics that was totally incompatible with us.”

    This outrageous disaster isn’t just some academic flight of fancy, the product of coffee-addled fugues at a chalkboard. Just such a psychedelic transition might have happened in our universe’s infancy, as the laws of physics congealed from the primordial fire of the Big Bang, and the fundamental forces we know today crystallized from more exotic forms. In fact, in 2012, when the world celebrated the discovery of the Higgs field (via the Higgs boson)—the thrilling validation of half a century of theory—some physicists quietly averred that the Higgs appeared to be unstable, and may someday destroy the universe.

    “So it could be the Higgs field, but it could be any combination of all the other fields in physics that, in principle, could transition to some other vacuum state.”

    If it happened it would be the end of everything. And there almost certainly would be no observers afterward.

    “But since we’re still here, there’s a reasonable inference that the timescale for this is billions of years, at least. But there’s no particularly good reason to think that it’s—well,” he stopped himself.

    “So, there are different arguments you could make,” he said. “You could say that if it’s already been billions of years it could just as easily be trillions or quadrillions or quintillions of years or whatever, so let’s not worry too much, or ...”

    Or it could be like those asteroids that kept missing the planet for billions of years before we got here, securing our eventual appearance but blinding us to future peril. Just as observers never show up on worlds that are quickly destroyed, they also don’t appear in universes that quickly unravel. No matter how common they are.

    “It may be that ultimately the reason we’re around for so long,” Aguirre said, “is that we’re around.”

    The ghosts of innumerable ill-fated universes began to hover over our conversation like skeletons at the feast—or planes at the bottom of the English Channel.

    “So,” I started, “there are billions of universes that were hospitable to life but they just—”

    “Yeah, they just didn’t last long enough. And we’re one of the universes that lasted long enough ... It may be that we’re kind of living on the edge. Like, we’re sort of the shortest-lived universe that would allow stuff to arise and start thinking about short-lived universes and so on. So that would be a bad scenario.”

    Aguirre started laughing again. Just like Sandberg’s mysteriously absent continent-spanning craters, the end of the universe itself might be looming in the anthropic shadows, held at bay—until now—by our very existence. Perhaps it’s only possible to wake up in a universe that has managed an almost impossible cosmic stay of execution lasting billions of years. In the early days of the Large Hadron Collider, when the megamachine kept running into seemingly endless, and increasingly improbable, financial and technical snags, some researchers—calling these mishaps “anti-miracles”—even half-seriously proposed that the universe was censoring us from this sort of destruction of the world occasioned by a successful run of the collider.

    There’s something bracing in the sort of license that cosmology grants to its practitioners to think very strange thoughts.

    “Do you want to go through the looking glass?” Aguirre asked me.

    “I’d love to,” I said, surprised that we hadn’t already done so.

    Quantum mechanics, the remarkably successful and remarkably strange physics of the very small, makes predictions whose accuracy can be verified in the real world to an almost arbitrary number of decimal places. In other words, quantum mechanics provides the best description of how the world works at its most fundamental level. One of the most bewildering experimental results of quantum mechanics, and of the 20th century, is that particles seem to exist in a sort of probabilistic purgatory, existing everywhere at once and nowhere in particular, hazily spinning both clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time—that is, until they are observed. Once measured, these many possibilities collapse into one coherent result and the observer measures some specific value for a particle.

    One of the leading interpretations of this quantum weirdness is that all of the possible realities for the particle that were winnowed away in this act of observation actually are realized somewhere in branching-off parallel universes, by observers in parallel universes—parallel universes just as real as the one in which we happen to live. Though the universe may be infinite in distance it may also be infinitely divergent in this sort of ontological zoo. This is called the “many-worlds interpretation” of quantum mechanics. Again, this is not an unpopular or esoteric theory. It is one of the most widely subscribed interpretations of the peculiar world of quantum mechanics among physicists. And if a universe-destroying vacuum-decay catastrophe played out, it would take place in this strange, existential arena.

    “What’s interesting about the nucleation of these vacuum-decay bubbles is that it’s a quantum-mechanical event,” Aguirre said about the ultimate catastrophe.

    That is, the spontaneous initiation of the end of the universe would be probabilistic—like an extremely high-stakes version of Schrödinger’s hapless cat in a box—splitting reality into versions where everything is obliterated and a luckier version that’s spared. And given that we may be creatures of the “many worlds” multiverse, constantly splitting off into different lives, Aguirre wonders whether we could ever actually experience the quantum apocalypse sweeping through the void when it arrived at our doorstep.

    “So, do we notice anything? That’s the question.”

    If the observer selection bias applies to our own lives, then perhaps we’re constantly being censored to the end of the universe.

    “So suppose the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is right,” he says. “So, one of the two versions of us ceases to exist, but do we actually notice that? So one of us keeps going on just as if nothing happened. Arguably, from moment to moment, I can’t rule out that five minutes ago the other version of us died. There’s no way for me to say that. So there’s an interesting, troubling question as to whether these things could be happening all the time and we just don’t even notice it.”

  • Ancient Mud Reveals an Explanation for Sudden Collapse of the Mayan Empire
    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/ancient-mud-reveals-an-explanation-for-sudden-collapse-of-the-mayan-empir

    The team determined that between the years 800 and 1,000, annual rainfall in the Maya lowlands decreased by nearly 50 percent on average and up to 70 percent during peak drought conditions. This means the rainfall in this region essentially stopped about the same time that the empire’s city-states were abandoned.

  • (ggogle trad)
    « D’après ce qu’ils ont découvert, l’équipe pense que ces personnes ont compris l’importance de la gestion des sols pour éviter la famine. Moins de cent ans après leur arrivée sur le minuscule archipel de 316 kilomètres carrés, ils avaient abattu la plupart des arbres, exposant le sol à une érosion drastique.

    Pour survivre, ils élevaient des animaux laitiers plutôt que de donner la priorité à la viande - tuant le bétail nouveau-né avant qu’ils n’aient eu la chance de paître. Ils ont mélangé le fumier de bétail dans le sol et ont peut-être même fait des voyages éreintants en transportant du sol lavé dans les vallées en amont pour rafraîchir les champs des hautes terres. La preuve en est d’étranges ornières parallèles dans le sol qui peuvent être des traces de charrettes, ainsi que des signes des squelettes indiquant que les tissus mous avaient parfois été complètement usés par une activité dure et répétitive. Curieusement, dit Malone, ils ne mangeaient presque pas de poisson.

    Pour réaliser un effort de collaboration aussi complexe, quelque chose de puissant a dû maintenir la cohésion de la communauté : les temples. Jusqu’à présent, on pensait que la culture du temple était centrée sur le culte d’une déesse mère, mais Malone pense qu’il s’agissait plus d’une culture de club-house, axée sur le rituel et la fête, mais où la nourriture - plutôt qu’une divinité - était vénérée. Dans les complexes, il est maintenant clair que les gens exposaient leur bétail et leurs récoltes sur des bancs et des autels spéciaux, festoyaient et stockaient également de la nourriture. Il n’y a aucune preuve squelettique de mort violente et aucune fortification, a déclaré Malone. Au contraire, la société semble avoir survécu grâce à la coopération et au partage. »

    Why a Thriving Civilization in Malta Collapsed 4,000 Years Ago
    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-a-thriving-civilization-in-malta-collapsed-4-000-years-ago

    From what they’ve uncovered, the team thinks that these people understood the importance of soil management to fend off starvation. Within a hundred years of their arrival on the tiny, 316 square-kilometer archipelago they had felled most of the trees, exposing the ground to drastic erosion.

    To survive, they reared dairy animals rather than prioritizing meat—killing off newborn livestock before they had a chance to graze. They mixed livestock manure back into the soil and may even have made back-breaking journeys carting soil washed into the valleys back uphill to refresh the upland fields. The evidence for this lies in strange, parallel ruts in the ground that may be cart tracks, as well as signs from the skeletons that soft tissue had sometimes been worn completely away by hard, repetitive activity. Oddly, says Malone, they ate almost no fish.

    To achieve such complex collaborative effort something powerful must have held the community together: the temples. Until now, the Temple Culture was thought to have centered on the worship of a mother goddess, but Malone thinks it was more of a clubhouse culture, focused on ritual and feasting but where food—rather than a deity—was revered. In the complexes it is now clear that the people displayed their livestock and harvests on special benches and altars, feasted, and also stored food. There is no skeletal evidence of violent death and no fortifications, said Malone. Instead the society appears to have survived through cooperation and sharing.

  • What I Learned from Jeff Bezos After Reading Every Amazon Shareholder Letter
    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-i-learned-from-jeff-bezos-after-reading-every-amazon-shareholder-let

    It was always about the long term.

    In every Amazon annual report, Jeff Bezos publishes a shareholder letter where he provides a broad overview of the company’s operations throughout the year. His letters are incredibly thought-provoking and are a must-read for anyone working in tech or interested in business. Bezos knows how to communicate with Wall Street and is both clear and concise in his writing. Recently, I discovered a link that included the complete set of these letters (from 1997 to 2016) in one handy PDF. Here are a few of my key takeaways from reading through it.
    It’s all about the long-term…

    In his 1997 shareholder letter, Jeff Bezos issued a manifesto “It’s all about the long-term” where he laid out his approach to business and to running Amazon. He pledged that decisions would be made with a long-term lens and with a focus on market leadership. This manifesto has been included in every single shareholder letter for the last 20 years! After reading these letters, it is clear that the fundamentals of how Amazon does business remain the same. Talk about commitment and consistency.

    A focus on the long-term is important for several reasons. First, for a company that drives growth through innovation, a long-term approach allows for experimentation and an acceptance of short-term failures. “Failure comes part and parcel with innovation. It is not an option.” A lot of Amazon’s growth has been driven by AWS, Marketplace, and Prime. Each of these offerings was a bold bet at first, with many skeptics. In Bezos’ 2014 letter, he noted that sensible people “worried (often!)” that these initiatives could not work. Bezos believed in his vision and stayed heads down.

    “If you’re going to invent, it means you’re going to experiment, so you have to think long term”

    Second, having a long-term orientation reduces the impact of stock price fluctuations on decision-making. In 2000, the company’s shares were down 80%. It would be natural to become reactive in this situation. Bezos, however, made decisions to build a “heavier company” against the vision that 15% of commerce eventually would move online (he made this statement in 2000 when e-commerce was less than 1% of total retail sales). Even though the stock had dropped dramatically, Bezos felt Amazon was better positioned than it was the year prior and marched forward with the same strategy.

    “In the short-term, the stock market is a voting machine; in the long-term it’s a weighing machine” — Benjamin Graham

    Third, when you are long-term oriented it aligns customer and shareholder interests. In the short term, this is not always the case. Some skeptics have criticized Amazon for being a “charitable organization being run by the investment community… for the benefit of consumers.” Bezos argues that long-term thinking “squares the circle” and that proactively delighting customers creates trust and more business.

    “Proactively delighting customers earns trust, which earns more business from those customers, even in new business arenas. Take a long-term view, and the interests of customers and shareholders align.”

    Customer centricity as a north star

    There are many different ways to structure a business: competitor-focused, product-focused, technology-focused, business model-focused, or customer-focused. From the outset, Amazon’s goal was to build the world’s most customer-centric company. Bezos would constantly remind employees to wake up every morning terrified… not of the competition, but of Amazon’s own customers. Customers are fickle; they are loyal to a company until a competitor offers a better service. Amazon designed its core value proposition around keeping customers happy by constantly offering more selection, better convenience, and lower prices.

    Jeff Bezos’ napkin sketch outlining Amazon’s strategy

    A low-cost structure leads to lower prices, which combined with a large range of products leads to a better customer experience. These happy customers return to purchase more items on Amazon sites, driving traffic and attracting more third-party sellers. This leads to more selection, which further contributes to a better customer experience.

    Amazon’s energy internally comes from its desire to impress its customers. This means reinventing normal and delivering products before customers even know they want them. Some companies may rely on customer surveys and market research to understand their users. This is especially dangerous when designing and inventing new products. “Good inventors and designers deeply understand their customer. They spend tremendous energy developing that intuition.”

    “A remarkable customer experience starts with the heart, intuition, curiosity, play, guts, taste. You won’t find any of it in a survey.”

    High-quality, high-velocity decision-making

    While it is important to make high-quality decisions, Bezos stresses the importance of making these decisions at high velocity. Speed matters in business and slow decision making is de-energizing and a competitive disadvantage. Bezos offers a set of guidelines for how to make decisions at high-velocity:

    Understand that decisions can be reversed: These “Type 2 decisions” are two-way doors that can be reversed. If you make a suboptimal Type 2 decision, you can reopen the door, and unwind the consequences. Because of this, these decisions should be made quickly. As organizations grow, there is a tendency to turn all decisions into Type 1 decisions that are made methodically and with great deliberation. The end result is slowness and diminished innovation.
    Bias towards action: Most decisions should be made with close to 70% of the information needed. Waiting for 90%+ information will slow you down.
    “Disagree and commit”: When consensus is not possible but you have conviction in a particular direction, “disagree and commit”. This means that while you disagree with the decision, you remain committed to a successful outcome. Staying focused on trying to change the team’s mind is too slow of an approach.
    Recognize when an agreement isn’t achievable: Sometimes different teams have different objectives and see the world differently. No discussion will change these views. A quick escalation in these scenarios is much better than constant argument, which will lead to exhaustion.

    “If you’re good at course correcting, being wrong is less costly than you think, whereas being slow is going to be expensive for sure”

    Put effort into inputs, not financial outputs

    While Amazon takes financial outputs seriously, 100% of the company’s time is focused on inputs. This is because these inputs are controllable and are the most effective way to maximize financial outputs. Bezos has instilled a rigorous annual goal-setting process at Amazon which is lengthy, spirited, and detail-oriented. In 2010, the company had 452 detailed goals with individual owners, deliverables, and target completion dates. Interestingly, however, across all these goals, the word ‘revenue’ was only used eight times and ‘free cash flow’ only four times. ‘Net income’, ‘gross profit’, and ‘operating profit’ was never used.

    As an exercise, let’s apply this logic to the goal of increasing the company’s stock price. We must work backward until we find something that is controllable as an input.

    No reasonable person would know how to drive up the stock price, but by working backward we identified a tangible input of improving picking efficiency to manage towards. This will drive down costs, which will increase free-cash-flow, which will drive up the stock price. This is only one of many strategies.

    “Focusing our energy on the controllable inputs to our business is the most effective way to maximize financial outputs over time”

    Build a disciplined, patient, and nurturing culture

    Today, Amazon’s main growth engines are largely AWS, Prime, and Marketplace. Each of these established businesses is a well-rooted tree that enjoys high returns on capital and operates in a large market. Each of these businesses was however once a tiny seed itself. Many large companies fail to launch new businesses from scratch because of the patience and nurturing required. One of Amazon’s competitive advantages is its culture which is supportive of small businesses with large potential.

    While Amazon’s culture demands that these businesses be high potential and differentiated, it does not require them to be large the day they are born. In 1996, Amazon crossed $10 million in book sales, a monumental feat for the company at the time. Today, a new business crosses that threshold would increase the company’s overall sales from $136 billion to $136.01 billion. Executives don’t scoff, but support these milestones. Celebrating wins and progress is important!

    AWS, Prime, and Marketplace are three big ideas which continue to be nurtured internally at Amazon. The company is actively searching for its fourth pillar which some claim could be Alexa. There’s clearly a growing trend toward using voice search and interacting with digital assistants. Some analysts predict Echo and Alexa-family revenue to generate over $11 billion by 2020. Only a couple years ago this category didn’t exist.
    Raise the bar on hiring… again and again

    Setting the bar high on hiring has been the single most important element of Amazon’s success. During the interview process, Amazon asks each interviewer to consider three questions before making a hiring decision:

    Will you admire this person?
    Will this person raise the average level of effectiveness of the group they’re entering?
    Along what dimension will this person be a superstar?

    Leaders recognize exceptional talent and take seriously their role in coaching others. Recently, Amazon developed the ‘raising the bar’ method by getting employees more involved in the interview process. The goal is to make sure every new hire is as good as, if not better than the one before.

    “You can work long, hard, or smart, but at Amazon.com you can’t choose two out of three”

    Final Thoughts

    Not only did Jeff Bezos predict the future, he helped shape it. In the 20 years since Amazon’s IPO, the company has grown from $148 million in revenue to over $136 billion. That’s close to 1000x! We are lucky that Jeff Bezos takes the time each year to share his knowledge with the world in these shareholder letters. As an investor (late-stage VC at IVP), in order to improve, I have to read… a lot. Bezos’ shareholder letters are a must-read for anyone interested in business. I have relinked the document here. It’s only 66 pages!

    “Our approach remains the same, and it’s still Day 1” — Jeff Bezos

    #affaires #platformes