Archives for 2014

NYC OpenData on graffiti

February 20, 2014 by rememberlenny

Graffiti data visualized in a line chart

Data from https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/DSNY-Grafitti-Information/gpwd-npar

NYC OpenData

New York is one of the United States leading proponent for open data and government transparency. The city has stood by the Open Data movement from the beginning, initially gaining public acclaim during President Obama’s first term. The movement surrounds the practice of publicizing data collected by citizen funded departments. Data varies in content and form, from financial balance sheets to statistical records. In the past year, emphasis has been made to release information into machine-readable formats: sans-PDF, pro-JSON.

CivicHacking

Yesterday I received an email promoting the Code for America brigade supporting the “Code Across NYC” civic hackathon. The email, from Chris Whong, promoted the spirit to getting involved with local communities through any means. Following Chris, Noel Hidalgo shared a recently released NYC OpenData blog post on new real time datasets on New York city.

The data set topics ranged from medical history, farmer’s market records, and graffiti reports. All the sets were deemed “real time” and machine-readable. These data sets provide public access to rich repositories of information. Based on the availability, these will be the beginning of fresh new software applications based on consuming these datasets. Imagine the next farmer’s market notification mobile app or graffiti report location tool.

Individually, the data makes available the well-organized datasets. Even more exciting are the cross-reference opportunities. An interested party doesn’t need to know how to program. Simply grab the CSV export copy of a preferred data set and get to some analysis. Immediately a PivotTable reference between data and category can provide interesting high-level comparisons. Looking at graffiti creation by date across boroughs shows the uneven reporting of graffiti incidents.

Graffiti

To start, I love graffiti. I love the notion of people finding and accessing places that have been deemed ‘dead’. I love the raw-ness of spray-paint. I love the culture, the people, even the drudgery associated to the painters. Most of all, I love how it represents a community of people who desire to express themselves publicly.

I am not one to argue that graffiti is not vandalism.mi strongly disagree with the painting of private property. I instead believe graffiti is the effect of a greater social culture associated with stemming the voice of individuals. I believe that large amounts of graffiti in an area are public signs for improvements.

There is a person doing the painting and that person is trying to say something. Maybe they have poor handwriting and a poor value system, but they are people to understand. Why do they get pleasure out of scrawling their moniker in public places? Why do they write on things that don’t belong to them? These questions make me interested in drilling into the available graffiti dataset.

I have a hypothesis that areas that are not central urban sectors with high amounts of graffiti could be improved by providing public art programs. I think most of the periphery communities with large amounts of graffiti are the result of youth between the ages of 12-18. I also believe these students have poor grades in school, are high risk for dropping out, and are likely exposed to drug use.

These assumptions aside, the graffiti is an expression of a societal problem. It’s not a graffiti problem. It’s. Community issue. It’s an education issue. Graffiti is the signal, but the cause is larger.

Action

I have never been able to pinpoint or analyze graffiti from a statistical front. I have never seen a dataset like the one that NYC has made publicly available. I’m sure these sets have been stringently analyzed and reviewed by police and sanitation departments, I believe the information was most likely viewed from a cost-arrest standpoint. I believe the individuals who, like myself, love graffiti and see the value in its messaging will make great use of this information.

I will be looking at this information to seek out insight for potential public programs to stem these issues. Imagine, graffiti declines because citizens feel alternative ways to express themselves. Imagine, communities coming together to take responsibility for the visual composition of their neighborhood. Imagine, children and teenagers out on the street with a spray can, because they feel they are being heard.

WhoWroteForSESRP.com reflection

February 17, 2014 by rememberlenny

Chart: Articles vs Years

Algebra for designing layouts

I have been reading about machine learning and linear algebraic analysis. In college, I failed two calculus courses. In high school, I repeatedly failed higher-level algebra courses. In an academic setting, pumping away at math worksheets was never a convincing use of my time. I much rather play video games at the time. I didn’t realize at the time, but I was using complex equations to calculate the optimal strategy to win.

Although I never caught on to academic mathematics, I find myself regularly using algebraic equations at work. I use complex algebraic equations everyday while design. While visual design is driven by aesthetic choices, the execution of interactive layouts requires thought out calculations. To get a navigation item to “stick” on a webpage when scrolling, or “unstick” after scrolling a certain distance, calculations are necessary.

After recognizing how something pleasantly interactive requires mathematically complex planning, I decided to explore other pursuits. I love math when its applied to something practical. I thrive in solving animation related math problems. Through reading about machine learning, I found a new topic that seemed interesting.

I attended the Soka Education Student Research Project conference this weekend. In preparation, I compiled the past 10 years of published articles. The compilation was made for WhoWroteForSESRP.¹ The process resulted in a simple JavaScript table for users to search published authors, titles, and issues.

Presenting data

The context in which you view Data (with a capital D) determines what you can understand. Edward Tufte emphasizes this point. I tried to understand the past 10 years of SESRP published papers. First, I organized the information in a flat context with simple attributes. Second, I viewed the relations between the attributes in aggregate. Lastly, I created charts and tables to make the results clear. This process shows that there are still many interesting relationships among SESRP papers that have not been clearly identified.

The first step required me to review the past 10 years of published journals. I selected the individual published paper titles, associated authors, and published issue year. The attributes chosen could have been expanded to full article texts, human-defined tags or categories, and article bibliography. Initially, I wanted to create a basic repository for easily browsing the past-published articles. ²

Second, I isolated the individual attributes to view them in relative increasing or decreasing order. Through collecting the data, I saw a distinct increase in published papers during the year 2011. Similarly, viewing the authors in aggregate clearly displayed the writers who published the large number of articles over the past 10 years. ³

Lastly, I charted the data to further understand the relationships between the authors, years published, and quantity of articles. In the future, I will add attributes to compare against. Mainly, I am interested in charting network relationships between cited articles, cited authors, and unrecognized topic driven clusters. ⁴

Insights from analysis

Filtering the quantity of articles published by year showed a unusual spike of submissions and a potentially changing overall trend. In 2011, the number of articles submitted more than doubled from previous year. In 2010 nine (9) articles were submitted, followed by 22 articles submitted in 2011. In the years following 2011, the average number of articles submitted increased by over 20%.

The quantity of articles published by author shows a familiar trend in participatory communities. Out of 85 total authors published in the yearly booklets, 64 authors had one paper published, 13 authors had two papers published, 3 authors had three papers published, 3 authors had four papers published, and 2 authors had five papers published. These numbers show that in the past 10 years from 2005 to 2014, approximately 75% of writers only publish one article.

The two authors who published the most are Gonzalo Obelleiro and Ryan Hayashi. Obelleiro’s first article appeared in 2006 and Hayashi’s first article appeared in 2011. While Hayashi and Obelleiro have the same number of articles published, Obelleiro has presented articles that have not been published, therefore technically he has written more than any other author. Regardless, Hayashi has been writing for less than half the number of years, so his rate of appearance is impressive.

Chart: Authors vs Articles

Suggestions

The past 10 years of conference organization has been completely led by students. The proposal request process for SESRP papers is distributed through current student body, the alumni network, and individual requests. In the interest of revitalizing previously interested attendees, past SESRP paper submitters should be personally requested to submit new papers. Future student tasked with organizing the SESRP conference should seek to mobilize the 75% of one-time publishing authors to propose a new paper topic. Most past authors are alumni of Soka University of America, so the alumni network may be useful in gathering contact information.

As the 10-year anniversary booklet is being prepared, organizers should seriously consider the 25% of authors who published more than one paper. The eight authors who published more than 3 articles each should be consulted for advice. While quantity of published papers does not reflect a priori for understanding Soka Education, their insight should be considered. These authors have shown personal interest through their multi-year commitment. These authors, from most published to least, are:

Gonzalo Obelleiro (5)
Ryan Hayashi (5)
Maria Sanchez (4)
Jean Marcus Silva (4)
Michael Strand (4)
Masahiro Kaleo Louis (3)
Menelik Tafari (3)
Nozomi Inukai (3)

Future expectations

The three attributes listing of the SESRP papers from 2005 to 2014 have raised positive results. This method of organizing information and finding relationships will be further applied to understand the relationships between sources cited in submitted papers. The goal will be to find the unseen relationships between the submitted papers. The cited resource’s author and publications will help create rich network maps displaying relationships between SESRP authors. Similarly, this relational mapping may display under recognized clusters or categories. This will prove to be useful in the 10-year anniversary booklet’s drafting.

Website mentioned above is located here: WhoWroteForSESRP.com ↩︎
Raw excel 2005-2014 title-author-issue data ↩︎
↩︎
↩︎

The opposite of poverty is justice

February 13, 2014 by rememberlenny

What is the opposite of poverty?

My roommate and I had dinner tonight. We don’t normally eat together and in the past we haven’t spent time together. I feel a distance between the two of us that stems from my personal subconscious judgement. I allow these personal options form, because they help me understand what I believe. Without reflecting on them, I wouldn’t be able to recognize where I am and where I want to be.

Our discussion began with cultural observations about the future. I observe that global cultural shifts are different from the past. The urbanized and rural communities are growing further apart. Urban centers are culturally similar around the world. Rural communities are the cultural unique reminiscence of the world.

I spent last year in China, Japan, Germany, Ecuador, and Peru. I traveled around the USA. I made stops in California, New Mexico, Texas, New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia. My short trips helped reinforce my opinions about global economic differences. The time in China and Ecuador were most influential.

Although I lived in China for a year, the disparity in wealth was not uncomfortable. I’d see the occasional an expensive car. Soon after, I would see a group of elder woman picking up recycling materials. The dichotomy of capital was obvious. I lived there, so I didn’t take it to heart. By the end of my time, I felt at home. I found the places I liked to eat, the friends I spent time with, and the tasks to occupy my time. The tasks were value creative. The comfort I experienced was my blindfold.

Going to Ecuador

I visited Ecuador as an outsider. I attempted to reconvene with seven friends living in around the US. The trip was spontaneous and successfully executed. With little planning and no language competency, I spent two weeks Ecuador and Peru. I got sick while traveling. The cold was the result of less than optimal sleeping conditions. The diet and deprived sleeping habits did not help.

Poverty was unavoidable in Ecuador. The country’s infrastructure struggles as a whole. Primary gross domestic exports were fruits, flowers, and oil. The majority of the country exchanged labor for small payment. People’s monthly salary was close to 300 dollars a month. A good monthly salary was 600 for a young man. 600 dollars for 30 days. 300 dollars.

The quality of life was good, but low. People were full of agency. Commerce was busy, even budding. People ran small businesses. Chain establishments existed in full force in Quito. Churches, museums, entertainment opportunities, and youth culture were well developed.

Meals were bland. Small piece of chicken, a bowl of soup, and rice was lunch. It’s called Almuerzo. It’s delicious, but its also the only thing you can find. Food choices were small. No condiments, little to no meat, and few vegetables. Just got rice.

Breakfast was simple. Eggs or a tortilla. Coffee was always instant. Leche de cafe. Morning coffee was a cup of warm milk with instant coffee powder. For a country that produces the worlds supply, Ecuador has horrible coffee.

Buses would stop to let on traveling salesmen and woman. Bus rides included opportunities to buy incense, fried pork loins, small meals, and bags of fruit. Looking back, the choice of foods was like rural China. Ecuador’s distinguishing factor was the approach to selling. Sales persons would get on a moving bus and make an announcement in the front area. Based on their pitch, some riders would show interest, while most would not.

Returning to the US

Ecuador affected me most when I returned to the US. Upon arriving in the Newark airport and taking the metro into New York, I recovered from my cold. Once arriving into the city, I was immediately approached by many homeless persons asking for money. No more than 12 hours before, I was in a country where even the poorest people sought honest ways to earn a living. In New York, I felt like the poorest of the rich did not seek an equal means.

The opposite of poverty is justice. Daisaku Ikeda states on many occasions within his speeches and dialogues with world leaders. Justice in economic opportunity. Justice in opportunity to experience the world. Justice in personal judgement.

I stress that the people I met in China and Ecuador had agency. Especially those from less affluent communities. Reflecting, I may even say that those from wealthier countries were less aware of their own agency to make change in the world as a whole. They instead frequented the thoughts of what they could not do. This was not something I saw in the youth of other places. Perhaps this is a negative consequence provided so much opportunity.

My interest in the startup space or the industries revolving around educating people is justice. How can I better identify the root of my local and global communities issues. What injustice can I recognize and take action against? I must stress that this will not happen with intellectual masturbation. I do not seek fame, wealth, or power. I desire to create value.

I returned my Google Glass after 30 days

January 6, 2014 by rememberlenny

I returned Google Glass

At the end of November, I was one of the thousands of people who receive the next round of invitations for Google Glass. After the v2 explorer edition was announced, I responded to an email from the Google Developers Group meetup in New York City. The email offered a Google Glass invitation code to anyone interested in acquiring the device.

Initially, I was completely sure I would want the device. I immediately responded to the email and excitedly told my roommate. Based on the timing of the invitation code request, I had to wait over the Thanksgiving holiday period before hearing a reply. During the time, I went home and spent an extended period researching the Google Glass status.

Many of the blogs online weren’t very diverse in opinion. There were the two camps of: “Its not where it could be, but I love the potential” and “This thing is way too expensive for what it can do”. Through reading state of Google Glass, I found that the battery life was poor, there was no integration with iOS (since December, this changed), the app eco-system was not extensive, and you couldn’t use it with perscription glasses. While I ocilated on my perspective toward buying Glass, I decided to go ahead with it.

Upon receiving confirmation of an invitation code, I setup my pick up date. Suprisingly, after I told my roommate, he applied for a Glass invite and was able to get a pair. After seeing his pair, I was reinvigorated to experiement with the new technology. In fact, because he had a pair, I started to imagine a number of possibilities involving multiple Glass users.

Wearing Glass

Wearing Glass in New York isnt too obscure. My roommate says it make you a “C class celebrity”. People look at you in the subway. Glass becomes a easy point to start a conversation. I even feel like you get special treatment at resturants. Regardless, it also becomes an impediment for feeling comfortable around people. Its an expensive piece of technology that draws attention.

I found that initially I was very interested in the different applications offered on Glass. The most interesting application is called Field Trips. Field Trips uses your current location to feed you relevant information about places around you. For example, Field Trips pulls in historic information about the landmarks around you. When you pass the area, you get a “card” that tells you the areas significance. There was a building in my community that I really admired, but never knew its historic significance. After walking by the building while wearing Glass, I got a “card” about the building. This blew my mind.

In most of December, Glass didnt have an iOS app. As a result, there was very limited functionality. There were no maps, very little SMS integration, and quickly drained phone battery. Even with these limitations, wearing Glass was awesome.

In mid-December, Glass updated itself overnight and introduced new features. This was impressive. The coolest was a “Wink” recognition feature that was not previously accessible. This feature allowed you to take pictures by winking with your right eye. Although the wink detection would occasionally lose calibration, the feature was very impressive.

Around the same time, the iOS application was released. This gave the Glass the ability to integrate with the iPhone. With the iOS app, Glass users could get directions without an Android device. This was very useful, but still not as impressive as I hoped. Even in the cold December weather, I found it easier to pull out my iPhone and look on Google Maps. When I needed to go to obscure addresses, it became impossible to “speak” the appropriate address.

My biggest struggle was the limited user interface on the Glass. While the device itself is best fit for voice activation, you can also use a number of gestures. I found the current interface too one-dimensional. When trying to set a Timer or procede through a list of application options, finding and selecting the prefered choice was difficult. Im sure this will be improved and no longer be an issue in the future.

Personal impressions

The reason Im returning Glass is less to do with the technology and more to do with the social implications. I had some great use cases, such as ease of recording personal interviews, as well as some bad acusations from stragners. Overall, the response from people was more positive than anything. People wanted to know about the “cool looking glasses”. Most lay people don’t follow tech news, so they have no idea what the Glass is. I found that there was a higher population of young men who responded to Glass positively. Oppositely, I found the largest group of negative responses to come from middle-aged woman.

My biggest issue with Glass was the disruptive quality when looking at or talking with people. Glass doesn’t disrupt your field of view, but it does feel like a barrier when interacting with other people. Once talking to someone, the Glass can be easily ignored, but I always felt a sense of discomfort.

My greatest joy with Glass was letting other people wear it. I found that younger people were very adept and using the voice activated commands. Oppositely, people in the twentys would wear the Glass and passively wait for something to happen. Adults who I had wear the Glass were often impressed by the device, but not as interested in trying it on.

After the honeymoon phase, I found myself using the Glass as a glorified watch. It because very easy to look at the time. I can imagine that great applications would be able to provide very valuable snippets of information with ease. For the time being, the information that is being served is not personally convincing for the need to have Glass. For the time being, even the best Glass apps are accessible via mobile devices. The moment Glass will shine is when apps are exclusively avaliable for Glass.

Reason for returning

I am returning Glass because I feel guilty about how much it costs. Buying the Glass was not a financial burden. As a software developer, I can justify expensive technology purchases because if they benefit my quality of life. Even if I dont use the device frequently, I would justify the value if it was useful when needed. I found this to be the case with buying a nice moniter for use at home and a high quality light laptop.

Still, the notion that I paid $1500 for the Glass felt obscure. Between the number of people who work low-paying hourly jobs, my mother included, I felt it was ridiculous to have such an expensive luxury item. The Glass would require more than a months worth of paychecks for most people to buy. Knowing that I was wearing the thing around without having much utilitive value kept reminding me how I was wasting the financial capital invested into the piece of technology.

If the device was a third of the cost, I could begin to justify the cost. For the time being, I am embarrased to be paying two months rent to feel apart of an exclusive group. While I think its amazing, I dont feel comfortable participating.

Overall thoughts

Considering my grievances about the user experience, I know these will be worked out. I have no question that the team working on Glass (officially and unofficially) are building amazing software. The potential for having a freely accessible camera and screen is brilliant. I can imagine security guards with Glass networks. Having a network of other “eyes” that you could access at the command of a voice seems useful in a number of professional use cases. I can see great social implications where people can see digital geo-fence activated messages based on their social networks. The Glass-like technologies have only jsut begun. I will be waiting with excitement to see the continued maturation of the Glass platform and users.