Photo Post #1: Florence, Italy

Florence at night. Taken from atop Piazzale Michelangelo in Spring 2014. © Chris Besserer

Amazon Dash: April Fools?

Apparently this is not an early April Fools Joke. Amazon has made shopping on their site even easier. One click checkout wasn't enough, now it's quite literally going to be just one push of the button away. Dash will be available only to Amazon Prime subscribers, furthering Amazon's push to get people to sign up for their service. Essentially, Dash is a system of buttons that will be attached to certain spots in your home, when you run out of or are close to running out of a certain product, you hit the corresponding button and Amazon will ship you more. Simple. And don't worry about hitting the button multiple times and having 200 laundry detergent bottles show up at your front door -- hitting the button more than once still results in just one order being processed. You also will have 30 minutes to cancel the order and a notification immediately pops up on your phone to confirm the order. 

Let's think about the upside to owning a product like this. If I need a refill of toothpaste or razors quickly, I might run to a CVS or grocery store. But if I see myself getting low a day or two before and am busy with work, I can hit the Dash button to preempt me running out. By the time I use my last razor, a refill pack will be sitting at my door. Easy? According to Amazon, they believe this convenience will work for lots of other products, everything from laundry detergent to Kraft macaroni and cheese. On Amazon's side, they will get you to buy more products off their site more often. For someone who normally would go to a store to buy these products, this will eliminate impulse purchases you make at the grocery story. Say you head out just to pick up more toilet paper and while heading down the aisle spot some chips, and then some soda and say "I'll just grab that while I'm here." When you don't even have to leave your house, this won't happen. But for those that were going to buy the products off of Amazon already, how much more of a convenience is this? I can already scan bar-codes of products using the Amazon app, and with a few clicks I'll have that product shipped. That's just it, the scan and the clicks. Dash eliminates that. Just as someone might wonder why there is a need for an Apple Watch when I can already do everything from the Iphone, why get a Dash button when I can already order products from my phone? It seems, technology is closer and closer to making it as easy as possible to do more than ever. Dash is a further move in this direction.

On the other side of the coin, there's obviously some negative aspects we should take a look at. The author of this Wired article brings up one point I want to elaborate more on. The information that these devices will provide to Amazon, giving them more opportunities to market specifically to you. As the author mentions, say you have been buying toilet paper every 2 months using Dash. Amazon would be able to tell if you are low on fiber content, they would then market certain dietary products specifically to you. We can expand this further, say you haven't been buying razors as often, they can speculate you've started to grow some facial hair and begin showing you ads pertaining to products dealing with facial hair hygiene. The bottom line is Amazon will gather more information about you and be able to use it to their advantage. There is also the button itself to think about, how that might look in certain parts of your house. I sure wouldn't want some Gatorade logo on my refrigerator. They must be out of sight from the visible eye, say in the pantry or behind the coffee maker. It also might be annoying if your child hits the button every day, forcing you to cancel orders over and over again. However, I'm a tech optimist, I think a niche product like this will probably be useful in some circumstances.

At the end of the day, to those of you that are skeptical about this product, I'm partially with you. It will be interesting to see if and how this catches on. However, with the introduction of 2 hour shipping by Amazon in NYC and now Dallas, this is ultimately where we are headed in the future. Making it as simple as humanly possible to order goods off their site is a goal for CEO Jeff Bezos and co. This is just another extension of that. Or it could just be another Amazon shot at free publicity, Happy April Fools Everyone.

The Sad State of Penn State Basketball:

As March Madness roles on, Penn State basketball fans watch on feeling a bit of a longing. Maybe longing isn't the right word. Frustration. When you fill out your bracket this year, there will be no Penn State team to root on. However, there will be seven other Big Ten schools in the tournament. Yet, sports fans are used to seeing the Nittany Lions near the top of the Big Ten leaderboard in almost every other sport. Let's quickly run through a few other Penn State Sports Team's…

-          Women’s volleyball won the NCAA National Title this year, their 6th title in just 8 years.

-          Men's wrestling had won 4 straight NCAA National titles before finishing 6^th in the nation this year.

-          Women’s field hockey has more Big Ten titles than any other school in the conference.

-          Women's basketball. The Lady Lions have reached the NCAA Tournament more than any other school in conference history. Quite the accomplishment.

-          Fencing teams have been either champions or runner up in 21 of 25 years.

I haven't even touched on some other well known sports and already, across the board, we see huge success for Penn State sports teams. Where do we not see any success? Men’s Basketball. Sadly, this year has been no different than most other years. Heck, this team wasn't even invited to the NIT. As a basketball fan and Penn State student, it’s frustrating. To see the other large state schools in the Big Ten make the NCAA tournament and win games, I wonder, why Penn State can’t garner that same success.

Let’s look at how Penn State fared in offense this year…

-          191^st in Points per Game: 66.9

-          125^th in Rebounds per Game: 35.3

-          328^th in Assists per Game: 9.9

-          258^th in Field Goal %: .420

Maybe the Defense was better?

-          156^th in Points Allowed: 66.2

-          198^th in Steals per Game: 6.1

These are poor numbers, but we can’t just glance at some rankings to explain the team’s failure. To compare, let’s look at Michigan, which finished a disappointing year by Michigan standards.

                                                                                                           Differential

-          240^th in Points Per Game: 64.7                       (PSU 191)       (-49)         

-          329^th in Rebounds per Game: 30.2                  (PSU 125)       (-204)       

-          231^st in Assists Per Game: 11.9                       (PSU 328)       (+97)        

-          224^th in Field Goal %: .426                             (PSU 258)       (+24)       

-          102^nd in Points Allowed: 64                            (PSU 156)       (+54)        

-          275^th in Steals per Game: 5.4                         (PSU 198)       (-77)         

What do these numbers tell us? Not much. Michigan actually had worse numbers in a few categories. Yet they still had 4 more Big Ten wins than Penn State. I was curious, because if you followed the season, you would have noticed that Penn State started the season 12-1. That’s right, 12 wins and 1 loss. The team finished the season on a 6-15 run, culminating with a meager 18-16 record. Next, I checked the Strength of Schedule (SOS) and Basketball Power Index (BPI). The BPI is a measure that takes into account multiple variables and comes up with a power ranking for each team. It’s an accurate measure for analysts to gauge just how good a basketball team really is. 100 is the best score you can have. To give some context, teams like Wisconsin and Duke are in the mid to low 90s. As I looked around, relative to other Big Ten teams Penn State wasn’t far off in opponents BPI. Meaning, Penn State played teams with an average BPI almost on par with other successful Big Ten teams. Let’s have a look.

-          Michigan State Average BPI: 66.7

-          Iowa Opponents Average BPI: 65.2

-          Penn State Opponents Average BPI: 62.4

Not that far off, but I realized this didn’t explain everything. Before Big Ten games start, teams play 13 non-conference games. Teams are able to schedule whatever games they want during this stretch, and many teams look to bolster experience and toughness by playing some solid opponents. I disaggregated the data and calculated the average opponents BPI for purely non-conference games. That’s when things became a littler clearer. Below is what I found.

Non-Conference Average Opponents BPI

-          Wisconsin                                61.63

-          Michigan St.                            54.96

-          Michigan                                 54.89

-          Rutgers                                    54.36

-          Iowa:                                       54.20

-          Maryland                                 53.72

-          Purdue                                     52.93

-          Indiana                                    51.08

-          Illinois                                     50.89

-          Northwestern                          49.49

-          Ohio State                               49.41

-          Nebraska                                 49.32

-          Penn State:                            47.53

By measure of opponents BPI, Penn State played the weakest non-conference schedule in the Big Ten… by far. The outlier is obviously Wisconsin, a true title contender, they looked to mesh with the best in the beginning of the season, a notable loss being to Duke. However the rest of the teams hover in the low 50s. Except for one… Penn State had far and away the weakest non-conference schedule. This season it showed, 12-1 against these low quality opponents. Once Big Ten play showed up, Penn State looked unready and unable to cope with this newfound talent, finishing up 5-16 in conference games. Smart coaches and smart fans understand, non-conference games is not a time to pad the coaches win sheet, it’s to get the team ready for conference games. Sure, let’s concede every team does schedule a few doozies to steamroll and boost confidence in the beginning of the season. But that is balanced out by tougher opponents as well. For instance, Iowa’s non-conference schedule included games against 6 teams that made the big dance (Texas, ND State, Hampton, UNC, Iowa State, and Northern Iowa). There’s a reason Iowa went dancing this year and Penn State didn't even come close.

Penn State finished 2^nd to last in the Big Ten, behind only Rutgers. Even Nebraska, and it’s hard to imagine how they recruit basketball talent out in cornhusker land, finished ahead of Penn State in the Big Ten this year. This is unacceptable. At a school with so much success in other athletics, this is not a standard the school should be setting. Yet here they are commending the head coach. Just last week Head Coach Pat Chambers received a two year contract extension, giving him until the 2018-2019 season to get things turned around. Beyond that, the AD has consistently talked up Chambers to the media (Link). If this is the bar that Penn State is setting for basketball, then it’s hard to see how the school will be anything more than the abysmal program that is known as Penn State basketball. For now, enjoy the emptiness of the BJC and the disappointment year after year. I’ll leave you with this clip, for this video is Penn State Basketball in a nutshell.  Please show me one other team that has their point guard inbound the basketball to break a press. Seriously, leave me a comment and let me know, I’d be curious to find out.

Book Spotlight #4: Descent into Chaos

"Descent into Chaos" 

by: Ahmed Rashid

Quote Highlight: "Six weeks before 9/11, an old Afghan friend of mine came to spend the day with me at my home in Lahore... At issue was his future, his safety, and the fate of his country... My friend was Hamid Karzai..." - Ahmed Rashid

What a whirlwind. I finally put this book down after a month of on and off reading, but wow, this was well worth it. Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist has put together a treasure trove of information on the US struggles against terrorist groups in the Middle East since 9/11. This book provides an in-depth review of who the Taliban are, why the US has been largely  unsuccessful in curtailing the terrorist groups in the region, as well as giving great insight into the Pakistani's role in aiding and funding militant groups. Ever wonder what Bin-Laden was doing holed up in Pakistan, only just miles away from Pakistan's version of West Point? This book has answers, and shines a light on the country's double dealings and serious misgivings in the fight against terrorism since 9/11. It seems the fight against the Taliban and other extremist groups, can not be analyzed without taking into account Pakistan's fight for Kashmir and great fear of arch-rival India. 

Rashid is able to intricately wind the reader through the links between state actors and terrorist groups in the region. He is highly critical of the Bush Administration, specifically Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in his analysis; the neo-con masterminds of the previous decade. Although it's very easy to follow his logic and see the ways in which the administration fumbled certain aspects of the war in Afghanistan post 9/11, I'm almost certain there are rebuttals to some of his arguments. At some points, Rashid is entirely too black and white, when there are clear shades of gray involved in the Administration's decision making. However, it's important to understand that this book is written through a true Pakistani viewpoint, and taking that into account, it's easy to see how frustrated those in the region can be with the United States. That said, it's clear that through Rashid's eyes, the Bush Administration squandered some great opportunities to turn Afghanistan around right after 9/11. The US was able to win the War against the Taliban under Operation Anaconda with great success, utilizing limited troops and funding early on. Unfortunately, Rashid says, the US then got distracted with the upcoming War in Iraq, and refused to begin the subsequent nation building and security provisions to the Afghan populace that were necessary in the aftermath of the victory. This, coupled with Pakistan's reluctance to stamp out the Taliban, led to a resurgence just a few years later of the Taliban and an emergence of new groups as well.

This book opened my eyes up to a lot of views that are somewhat known, but not mentioned a lot in the mainstream. Specifically, Rashid sheds an enormous spotlight on the state of Pakistan. It's hard to come away from this book optimistic, as it's now 2015, and we see the reign of ISIS and other groups in the region. While specifically in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban have not been crushed either. Unfortunately, the state of Pakistan, through the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence service) and the army, has been funding and providing safe haven for Taliban militants pre-9/11 and continues to do so post 9/11. According to Rashid, the Bush Administration failed to adequately pressure the Musharaf regime to clamp down on the ISI's support of the Taliban. After 9/11, the Taliban were able to escape into the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) of Pakistan and not only regroup, but set up shop. This is all intricately linked to the struggle between Pakistan and India in their fight over Kashmir. The Bush Administration, and the West, seem to be inclined to not pressure Pakistan too much because they fear the fall of a stable regime within the country. A worse case scenario that would see a country with nuclear weapons fall into instability and create a significant likelihood that powerful weapons could fall into bad hands. Although that makes strategic sense, it severely hampers the fight against the Taliban and other militant groups because of the support these groups are able to receive from elements inside of the Pakistani army and Intelligence services. So, although this is a known phenomenon, it's rarely discussed in the mainstream and this book opened up the details to the relationship between Pakistan and the Taliban. If you're someone who is at all interested in an in-depth and eye opening analysis of the War in Afghanistan and the fight against the Taliban, this is certainly the book for you. My only disclaimer is to be aware of the US foreign policy bashing, and bear with the incessant amount of names you will be opened up to.

The Case against Twitter

Twitter announced earnings this past week and the stock quickly rallied 15% after the report. However, monthly user growth on the platform, which seemed to be the most important metric heading into earnings came up below expectations. It's a number that's been a concern for investors for months now. In the lead-up to the release, all the talk seemed to be on whether user growth would continue its slow down or Twitter would surprise analyst expectations. So why did the stock head up 15%? Well, EPS were double what analysts had expected, at 12 cents per share and revenue was higher than expected at $479 million. So Twitter proved that it will be able to monetize it's existing user base. In addition, the company announced a partnership with Google that will allow tweets to be searchable instantly from Google. The market seemed to be pleased with the revenue growth and EPS, ignoring the paltry user growth and the stock bounced. However, I'm here to argue that the market should be more concerned about user growth and less about monetization right now. It's user growth that will keep the company alive. In today's world of frantic, fast paced social media game, it's all about the new thing. Twitter may be losing that appeal. In comparison, Facebook has been very focused on increasing it's user base.

Facebook has focused on new users since inception, now able to boast over a billion active monthly users. Furthermore, the company owns Instagram, which has MORE active monthly users than Twitter. Mark Zuckerburg, unlike CEO of Twitter Dick Costolo, understands that it's all about user growth. Once you have users, you can begin to monetize the service. Facebook is well known, and has been growing strong recently. Take a look at the chart below to see the user growth comparison between Facebook and Twitter. That's not even including Instagram. The last chart is two years old, but the trend has stayed the same. Facebook showing a much better increase in the number of users as compared to Twitter. After you have a look at the charts, let's look at a few other services as well.

Over a billion users

Paltry User Growth

Comparing Facebook User Growth to that of Twitter.

Take Snapchat for instance. The WSJ claims the service has over 100 million monthly active users, and that was in August of 2014. That's only 1/3 of Twitter but it's most likely growing at a much faster rate. With features such as Snapchat story, snapcash, and the new discover feature, the company is hungrily looking to expand. Snapchat is churning out new features, twitter just can't seem to innovate new products fast enough to keep up in this age. Twitter is so slow to come out wiht new features that investors cheered when group direct messaging arrived and when "while you were away" started. Paltry in comparison. On snapchat, users send snaps (timed self destructing pictures) to each other and use story to share pictures from their day. Heading to the Knicks game? Make sure to put a picture on your story. Each users story deletes within 24 hours, creating a blank slate for the next day. Rinse and repeat. Users are hooked and have a reason to be on and uploading every hour of every day. Additionally, Snapchat has a new LIVE feature, that allow users who go to a certain event, say the Superbowl, to send snaps in and get put on the official Superbowl live feed. Every single user of snapchat has viewing access to the live feed of the Superbowl, where they can see other users snaps first hand. This has been a huge innovation and I believe is transforming the way young people get the news. For the Grammy's, you could watch celebrities own snapchats straight from the red carpet or back stage instead of going through an intermediary. It turns everyone into a reporter of some kind, giving a number of different perspectives from one event all into one place. This would never happen on an official news site like ESPN or CNN. Snapchat is here to stay and seems to be the most used app for kids around college age besides Instagram.

Take another new app, Yik-Yak. The anonymous posting app has largely taken the place of what young people would normally be tweeting. Instead of tweeting, a user can anonymously post to Yik-Yak where users can vote the post up or down. After a few hours, the post deletes. It's a continuous flow of posts, essentially tweets, all anonymous. For the young, I see more and more people moving to Yik-Yak for random thoughts and tid bits that would normally have been posted to twitter. This social media app may not be here to stay, but it shows how easily random "tweets" can be replaced. There is nothing keeping young people around, no novelty to tweeting over any other service.

It's going to take more than getting rid of "trolls" on the platform, as CEO Dick Costolo seems focused on, for Twitter to warrant the valuation the market currently gives it. What gives the company value, is growth, future growth. In order to grow, you need new users. The company can monetize existing users all it wants, this doesn't  give it to the valuation it currently has. Twitter is here to stay, but it's not here to explode. It's a useful service that allows people to get news and other pieces of information in an instant. That's all there is to it.