The Risks of Demonizing Silicon Valley

for decades, the ascent of technology has broadly been regarded as positive, heralding an era of increased productivity and greater interaction. But recently, the litany of business missteps and a general feeling of energy accreting to a few extraordinarily rich and powerful businesses as well as the men–yes, mainly men–who lead them has triggered a wave of criticisms of once-Teflon tradition of this Valley.

With this thought, 2-3 weeks ago we proposed to my editors at WIRED we write an item in regards to the notable change in public attitudes towards Silicon Valley within the last year, from mainly laudatory to increasingly damning. I thought to write an essay that cautioned against having the pendulum swing too much from adulation toward condemnation, that cautioned against lumping Silicon Valley in with Washington and Wall Street as exemplars maybe not of United states exceptionalism but of venality. In this piece, i’d argue that individuals have actually spiraled too far in to a maelstrom of cynicism about Washington and Wall Street in the last few years, and now we do ourselves no favors tearing straight down Silicon Valley plus an industry that seemed to be the very last bastion of positive change.

Then an account broke about a noted Washington think tank, brand new America. The inspiration, which includes gotten millions of dollars in financing from Bing through the years, decided to part ways having a noted thought-leader, Barry Lynn, who’s got always been warning associated with the monopolistic risks in tech behemoths like Bing amassing excessively innovation, way too much money, and an excessive amount of the web. Lynn’s ouster ended up being commonly, though in my own view, maybe not correctly, characterized as “Google Pushes Out Critics at Google-Funded Think Tank.”

It takes place that I am regarding the board of the latest America and also been for several years. Therefore while I’d in the pipeline to publish a tale about the threats of an American tradition fast to tear down heroes and seek villains, an ultimately self-defeating vortex, this brand new America episode makes the conundrum here more sharp and painful for me, but more crucial, for all those.

Just what happened between brand new America, Google as well as the Open Markets Program that Lynn led certainly does touch on thorny issues of cash, power, and get a handle on both. In many ways, accurate or perhaps not, it feeds the new narrative Silicon Valley isn’t any longer the golden youngster and/or social exclusion. Bing went from the business understood for “do no evil” to 1 which charged with being evil, its leaders, and the ones of other Valley behemoths, treated as latter-day Robber Barons and monopolists looking for trust-busting and legislation and break the rules. Headlines particularly “Echoes of Wall Street in Silicon Valley’s hold on money and energy” and “Too Much energy is based on Tech businesses’ Hands” proliferate. Thus the recent improvement in tone.

And scrutiny of Valley and its particular issues is long overdue. People should push against the arrogance that “our way may be the right method and the only way” plus the intolerance of some ideas that don’t accord utilizing the Valley’s groupthink. Individuals ought to be alarmed that incredible wealth is targeted in several arms. They should question the’s sexism. They need to pay attention to the industry’s a few ideas on social dilemmas including privacy to regulation plus the government’s part.

The task is how to balance legitimate criticisms without descending into demonization. It is not challenging unique to Silicon Valley. Exactly the same argument might be made about federal government together with monetary world. Washington might be corrupt and dysfunctional, but relentlessly tearing it down makes it that much harder for people allowing federal government to accomplish just what many of us expect and want it to; Wall Street might have been infected with greed, but we truly need a well balanced and revolutionary economic climate to facilitate a captivating financial system.

We people have a tendency to fail at stability. We either adore or revile; trust or suspect. Keeping two or more contradictory truths is normally beyond our collective capabilities. So it’s a tall order to ask (need?) we view the existing status quo in Silicon Valley as both in deep need of reform plus in deep need of respect. Technology has assisted resolve some of the elemental dilemmas of humanity, from food supply to disease eradication to connectivity and reducing the price of lots of life’s essentials. Technology reaches the epicenter of whether we shall effectively handle and mitigate climate change, how living standards globally and domestically continues to enhance, and whether we become an ever-more connected collective or an increasingly divided one. Silicon Valley is hardly the only real center of technological innovation, any longer than downtown New York and/or D.C Beltway will be the only centers of federal government and finance. Nonetheless they set the tone, and how we understand them issues.

Pessimism and cynicism corrode our capacity to harness our energies to reform and build. Nobody besides a greedy few invests in an organization, raises money, strives to make a new services or products, or works hard if they’re convinced your system is rigged, the long term is grim, therefore the nation is screwed. And until a heartbeat ago, Silicon Valley remained mostly of the engines that most individuals actually thought had been shaping a better future. That consequently formed a virtuous circle of cash, customers and innovation, with services and products that hundreds of millions of people celebrated.

That which we don’t want is copy the unceasing demonization of Washington. We’ve got a government so torn and split, led by way of a populist fueled almost entirely by anger and id, that it is extremely hard to see a great deal good from the sector of our communities that employs several million individuals and views trillions of bucks flowing through it.

A training, then, the Valley today is need greater accountability and transparency, and to flake out control and concentration of wide range and power. Idols are really easy to tear straight down, but every culture which has done this will be left within the place of now just what? We now have already unleashed the wrecking ball on Washington and Wall Street, with lower than optimal results. Let’s not decrease equivalent course utilizing the Valley.

Google Wants You to Help Fix the Fake-Fact Problem It Created

Barack Obama is the king of the United States. Republicans are Nazis who clearly hate the Constitution. Dinosaurs are being used to indoctrinate both children and adults into believing that the earth is millions of years old. Women can’t love men. Fire trucks are red because Russians are red.

If you took Google for its word, you’d believe all of these “facts” as truth. Each absurd claim has appeared as a “snippet” on a Google search result—you know, those boxes above the lists of links that try to answer your questions so that you don’t have to actually click through to a website.

Thankfully, Google has changed or removed all of these snippets once they became widely known. But high-profile misfires like these have put pressure on Google to seek new ways to curb inaccurate or offensive snippets before they poison credulous minds—or embarrass the company. Many of these measures, such as algorithm tweaks or new guidelines for the workers who evaluate search results, will happen behind the scenes. But the company will also roll out an expanded feedback form for reporting inappropriate snippets, search results, and autocomplete suggestions.

There’s a lot to like about this plan. It shows that Google is taking the problem of misinformation seriously while offering up a new level of transparency in making public some criteria for removing or changing search suggestions. But these fixes only solve one part of the problem with snippets. Improving snippet accuracy does nothing to address the problem of Google cannibalizing traffic from the sources from which it strips these answers. Nor does it resolve the underlying philosophical question: When should Google try to provide “one true answer” to a question versus just delivering a list of links? After all, the easiest way to get rid of misinformation in snippets is to get rid of snippets altogether, right?

But for the future of Google’s business, the answer is not that simple. Having an authoritative answer to as many search queries as possible is increasingly important to the company as it extends its reach beyond traditional, text-based search results into the world of voice-based personal assistants. When you ask your phone or your web-connected speaker a question, you want an answer, not a list of webpages. Even in the text-based world, you often want a quick answer to settle an argument.

But it turns out that turning search results into pat answers has a cost. Last week, The Outline reported that CelebrityNetWorth.com lost about 65 percent of its traffic after Google started including its data in snippets instead of leaving it to users to click through to the site. Site founder Brian Warner said he had to lay off half his staff. This undermining isn’t just a problem for the sites that Google scrapes for information. It’s a problem for Google itself, because if the companies that gather and publish this data can’t make money and have to close, Google loses its source of data.

Meanwhile, there are some questions Google clearly shouldn’t even try to answer. For example, as of now it doesn’t show a snippet for the query, “Does God exist?” But it also stays out of questions like, “Did the Holocaust actually happen?” and “Is climate change real?”

So where should Google draw the line? Conspiracy theorists claim that because jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel beams, 9/11 was an inside job. When you search “can jet fuel melt steel beams,” as The Outline points out, Google displays an excerpt from a Popular Mechanics article pointing out that although it’s technically true that burning jet fuel won’t melt steel, the beams that held up the World Trade Center buildings didn’t need to melt in order to collapse.

That’s useful information, but why is Google willing to combat 9/11 conspiracy theories but not Holocaust denialism? Perhaps the company would argue that explaining the historical evidence of the Holocaust is too complex to fit into a snippet (and indeed, Google doesn’t try to provide a definitive answer to the broader question “was 9/11 an inside job”). But if Google is going to position itself as the arbiter of truth, it should be willing to state the facts on climate change and the Holocaust.

The feedback it gathers from users may help Google decide when to stay out of a debate entirely, but the questions the company now faces don’t have snippet-sized answers. To succeed on new computing platforms where conventional search results don’t make sense, Google has put itself in the position of becoming an arbiter of facts. That’s not a simple job, nor one it can expect to succeed at doing simply by offloading the work on you.

Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.

I Took the AI Class Facebookers Are Literally Sprinting to Get Into

Chia-Chiunn Ho was eating lunch inside Facebook headquarters, at the Full Circle Cafe, when he saw the notice on his phone: Larry Zitnick, one of the leading figures at the Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research lab, was teaching another class on deep learning.

Ho is a 34-year-old Facebook digital graphics engineer known to everyone as “Solti,” after his favorite conductor. He couldn’t see a way of signing up for the class right there in the app. So he stood up from his half-eaten lunch and sprinted across MPK 20, the Facebook building that’s longer than a football field but feels like a single room. “My desk is all the way at the other end,” he says. Sliding into his desk chair, he opened his laptop and surfed back to the page. But the class was already full.

Internet giants have vacuumed up most of the available AI talent—and they need more.

He’d been shut out the first time Zitnick taught the class, too. This time, when the lectures started in the middle of January, he showed up anyway. He also wormed his way into the workshops, joining the rest of the class as they competed to build the best AI models from company data. Over the next few weeks, he climbed to the top of the leaderboard. “I didn’t get in, so I wanted to do well,” he says. The Facebook powers-that-be are more than happy he did. As anxious as Solti was to take the class—a private set of lectures and workshops open only to company employees—Facebook stands to benefit the most.

Deep learning is the technology that identifies faces in the photos you post to Facebook. It also recognizes commands spoken into Google phones, translates foreign languages on Microsoft’s Skype app, and wrangles porn on Twitter, not to mention the way it’s changing everything from internet search and advertising to cybersecurity. Over the last five years, this technology has radically shifted the course of all the internet’s biggest operations.

With help from Geoff Hinton, one of the founding fathers of the deep learning movement, Google built a central AI lab that feeds the rest of the company. Then it paid more than $650 million for DeepMind, a second lab based in London. Another founding father, Yann LeCun, built a similar operation at Facebook. And so many other deep learning startups and academics have flooded into so many other companies, drawn by enormous paydays.

The problem: These companies have now vacuumed up most of the available talent—and they need more. Until recently, deep learning was a fringe pursuit even in the academic world. Relatively few people are formally trained in these techniques, which require a very different kind of thinking than traditional software engineering. So, Facebook is now organizing formal classes and longterm research internships in an effort to build new deep learning talent and spread it across the company. “We have incredibly smart people here,” Zitnick says. “They just need the tools.”

Meanwhile, just down the road from Facebook’s Menlo Park, California, headquarters, Google is doing much the same, apparently on an even larger scale, as so many other companies struggle to deal with the AI talent vacuum. David Elkington, CEO of Insidesales, a company that applies AI techniques to online sales services, says he’s now opening an outpost in Ireland because he can’t find the AI and data science talent he needs here in the States. “It’s more of an art than a science,” he says. And the best practitioners of that art are very expensive.

In the years to come, universities will catch up with the deep learning revolution, producing far more talent than they do today. Online courses from the likes of Udacity and Coursera are also spreading the gospel. But the biggest internet companies need a more immediate fix.

Seeing the Future

Larry Zitnick, 42, is a walking, talking, teaching symbol of how quickly these AI techniques have ascended—and how valuable deep learning talent has become. At Microsoft, he spent a decade working to build systems that could see like humans. Then, in 2012, deep learning techniques eclipsed his ten years of research in a matter of months.

In essence, researchers like Zitnick were building machine vision one tiny piece at time, applying very particular techniques to very particular parts of the problem. But then academics like Geoff Hinton showed that a single piece—a deep neural network—could achieve far more. Rather than code a system by hand, Hinton and company built neural networks that could learn tasks largely on their own by analyzing vast amounts of data. “We saw this huge step change with deep learning,” Zitnick says. “Things started to work.”

For Zitnick, the personal turning point came one afternoon in the fall of 2013. He was sitting in a lecture hall at the University of California, Berkeley, listening to a PhD student named Ross Girshick describe a deep learning system that could learn to identify objects in photos. Feed it millions of cat photos, for instance, and it could learn to identify a cat—actually pinpoint it in the photo. As Girshick described the math behind his method, Zitnick could see where the grad student was headed. All he wanted to hear was how well the system performed. He kept whispering: “Just tell us the numbers.” Finally, Girshick gave the numbers. “It was super-clear that this was going to be the way of the future,” Zitnick says.

Within weeks, he hired Girshick at Microsoft Research, as he and the rest of the company’s computer vision team reorganized their work around deep learning. This required a sizable shift in thinking. As a top researcher once told me, creating these deep learning systems is more like being a coach than a player. Rather than building a piece of software on your own, one line of code at a time, you’re coaxing a result from a sea of information.

But Girshick wasn’t long for Microsoft. And neither was Zitnick. Soon, Facebook poached them both—and almost everyone else on the team.

This demand for talent is the reason Zitnick is now teaching a deep learning class at Facebook. And like so many other engineers and data scientists across Silicon Valley, the Facebook rank and file are well aware of the trend. When Zitnick announced the first class in the fall, the 60 spots filled up in ten minutes. He announced a bigger class this winter, and it filled up nearly as quickly. There’s demand for these ideas on both sides of the equation.

There’s also demand among tech reporters. I took the latest class myself, though Facebook wouldn’t let me participate in the workshops on my own. That would require access to the Facebook network. The company believes in education, but only up to a point. Ultimately, all this is about business.

Going Deep

The class begins with the fundamental idea: the neural network, a notion that researchers like Frank Rosenblatt explored with as far back as the late 1950s. The conceit is that a neural net mimics the web of neuron in the brain. And in a way, it does. It operates by sending information between processing units, or nodes, that stand in for neurons. But these nodes are really just linear algebra and calculus that can identify patterns in data.

Even in the `50s, it worked. Rosenblatt, a professor of psychology at Cornell, demonstrated his system for the New Yorker and the New York Times, showing that it could learn to identify changes in punchcards fed into an IBM 704 mainframe. But the idea was fundamentally limited—it could only solve very small problems—and in the late ’60s, when MIT’s Marvin Minsky published a book that proved these limitations, the AI community all but dropped the idea. It returned to the fore only after academics like Hinton and LeCun expanded these system so they could operate across multiple layers of nodes. That’s the “deep” in deep learning.

As Zitnick explains, each layer makes a calculation and passes it to the next. Then, using a technique called “back propagation,” the layers send information back down the chain as a means of error correction. As the years went by and technology advanced, neural networks could train on much larger amounts of data using much larger amounts of computing power. And they proved enormously useful. “For the first time ever, we could take raw input data like audio and images and make sense of them,” Zitnick told his class, standing at a lectern inside MPK 20, the south end of San Francisco Bay framed in the window beside him.

‘We have incredibly smart people here. They just need the tools.’ Larry Zitnick

As the class progresses and the pace picks up, Zitnick also explains how these techniques evolved into more complex systems. He explores convolutional neural networks, a method inspired by the brain’s visual cortex that groups neurons into “receptive fields” arranged almost like overlapping tiles. His boss, Yann LeCun, used these to recognize handwriting way back in the early ’90s. Then the class progresses to LSTMs—neural networks that include their own short-term memory, a way of retaining one piece of information while examining what comes next. This is what helps identify the commands you speak into Android phones.

In the end, all these methods are still just math. But to understand how they work, students must visualize how they operate across time (as data passes through the neural network) and space (as those tile-like receptive fields examine each section of a photo). Applying these methods to real problems, as Zitnick’s students do during the workshops, is a process of trial, error, and intuition—kind of like manning the mixing console in a recording studio. You’re not at a physical console. You’re at a laptop, sending commands to machines in Facebook data centers across the internet, where the neural networks do their training. But you spend your time adjusting all sorts of virtual knobs—the size of the dataset, the speed of the training, the relative influence of each node—until you get the right mix. “A lot of it is built by experience,” says Angela Fan, 22, who took Zitnick’s class in the fall.

A New Army

Fan studied statistics and computer science as an undergraduate at Harvard, finishing just last spring. She took some AI courses, but many of the latest techniques are still new even to her, particularly when it comes to actually putting them into practice. “I can learn just from interacting with the codebase,” she says, referring to the software tools Facebook has built for this kind of work.

For her, the class was part of a much larger education. At the behest of her college professor, she applied for Facebook’s “AI immersion program.” She won a spot working alongside Zitnick and other researchers as a kind of intern for the next year or two. Earlier this month, her team published new research describing a system that takes the convolutional neural networks that typically analyze photos and uses them to build better AI models for understanding natural language—that is, how humans talk to each other.

This kind of language research is the next frontier for deep learning. After reinventing image recognition, speech recognition, and machine translation, researchers are pushing toward machines that can truly understand what humans say and respond in kind. In the near-term, the techniques described in Fan’s paper could help improve that service on your smartphone that guesses what you’ll type next. She envisions a tiny neural network sitting on your phone, learning how you—and just you in particular—talk to other people.

For Facebook, the goal is to create an army of Angela Fans, researchers steeped not just in neural networks but a range of related technologies, including reinforcement learning—the method that drove DeepMind’s AlphaGo system when it cracked the ancient game of Go—and other techniques that Zitnick explores as the course comes to a close. To this end, when Zitnick reprised the course this winter, Fan and other AI lab interns served as class TAs, running the workshops and answering any questions that came up over the six weeks of lectures.

Facebook isn’t just trying to beef its central AI lab. It’s hoping to spread these skills across the company. Deep learning isn’t a niche pursuit. It’s a general technology that can potentially change any part of Facebook, from Messenger to the company’s central advertising engine. Solti could even apply it to the creation of videos, considering that neural networks also have a talent for art. Any Facebook engineer or data scientist could benefit from understanding this AI. That’s why Larry Zitnick is teaching the class. And it’s why Solti abandoned his lunch.

Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.

This is the season Tech Stocks Became certain Bets

2016 ended up being the season technology got “fangs.”

Well, maybe not literally. FANGs was a term created by CNBC business guru Jim Cramer in 2015 to explain the high-performing shares regarding the massively successful technology businesses Twitter, Amazon, Netflix, and Google (now called Alphabet). Today, it’s perhaps not these specific companies which are theoretically near the top of the Wall Street leaderboard—that difference falls to Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook. But “FANGs” is convenient shorthand for a sensation that emerged in 2016: the worth of tech couldn’t be shaken, no real matter what volatility existed down in wider globe. It was the year the brand new giants of tech became a truly dominant market force.

The big moral concept of this dot-com bubble in the late 90s was that technology might be extremely dangerous. Tech stocks were filled, largely due to buzz and buzz. Investors soon unearthed that a lot of these companies did not become delivering on their claims of value. (keep in mind Webvan, Pets.com, Kozmo, and Flooz? Yep, that’s the idea.) With abounding opportunities in other sectors of the economy, including retail, medical, oil and energy, technology simply seemed like less of the sure thing. Yes, the mentality didn’t final forever. Ultimately, the entire world expanded to count on famous brands IBM and Cisco as fairly well-performing shares.

In 2016, things had been markedly different. Now, technology isn’t just “reasonably well-performing” being an industry. In fact, for about a couple of days mid-year, technology absolutely dominated market ratings, pressing out almost every other industry on the planet. Nowadays, there’s a brand new technology world purchase, too. The handful of titans you might’ve guessed is successful forever have revealed their growing irrelevance. The turnover of capacity to this new giants of technology is well underway. Together with emergence of tech’s fangs this season proved it.

Tech Top Five

Just view just what took place for some hours in belated July, and definitively another month. During the close of this general public trading market regarding the very first Monday of August, the utmost effective companies in the world by market value were all US technology companies: number 1 was Apple; accompanied by Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook. (Netflix, an authentic FANG, continues to be a tremendously successful—and growing—company in a unique right. But about inside law-defying realm of enormous tech triumphs, it’s not exactly made its mark yet.) This type of sweeping takeover by tech available in the market didn’t take place also during the dot-com growth. And also this means American technology companies surpassed behemoths in other industries usually looked at as stubborn mainstays within the top rungs associated with general public market, like Berkshire Hathaway, GE, and Exxon Mobil.

Us tech companies surpassed behemoths often regarded as stubborn mainstays in the top rungs associated with the public market, like Berkshire Hathaway and Exxon Mobil.

It’s vital that you note that the “biggest organizations by market limit” does not really suggest these businesses maximize profit the world, or produce many items of value on the planet. It just means the organization’s stocks are worth the most at the moment, when you take share cost and grow it by the total quantity of shares held by investors. So when any good businessperson well understands, the fates for the markets change quickly. Nowadays, Berkshire Hathaway and Exxon Mobil are backup the leaderboard, pushing Amazon’s and Facebook’s ratings down. (As of this writing, Apple’s market limit appears at $626.3 billion; Google’s is $553.92 billion; Microsoft’s at $493.14 billion; Amazon at $367.7 billion; and Twitter at $342.5 billion. Breaking this solid technology front is Berkshire Hathaway, having market cap of $410.54 billion, and Exxon at $375 billion.)

This proves that Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook have actually matured to the stage of operating like more conventionally successful businesses. “They justify their valuations with actual financial performance,” claims Jan Dawson, chief analyst at Jackdaw Research. “Aside from the macro-tech financial failure, I anticipate these firms to keep at the very top,” says Patrick Moorhead, tech analyst within market industry research firm Moor Insights and Strategy.

Just what provides these companies their ability to be therefore sprawling is that each possesses dependable, lucrative business, Dawson highlights. Alphabet has Google search, and its particular other ad organizations. Facebook has Information Feed marketing, its stranglehold on media as nearly half of American grownups head to the social networking for their news, and its particular domination of mobile through different Facebook-owned apps. Apple has its money-making iPhone along with other hardware services and products. Microsoft’s conventional computer software organizations have now been capable carry the organization through. And Amazon has its pioneering Amazon online Services cloud computing arm, which has been calculated to perform 1 % associated with the whole internet. “These organizations have core that’s predictable, that tosses up a huge level of earnings,” says Dawson.

That’s simply because they share several key features. “They hit their financial goals, which then gives them ‘market authorization’ to take chances,” says Moorhead. “They have a lot of believers that they can get a whole lot larger in the future in line with the big dangers they are using. That businesses hit their product objectives because they deliver what they say they’ve been delivering, typically on-time.” GoPro and FitBit, which struggled in 2016, didn’t share in every among these traits. Meanwhile, the technology top five’s unique characteristics gave them the capability to experiment in everything from self-driving cars to internet-beaming drones, among a lot of other moonshot tasks. “They are able to afford to dabble in other things. If the only business you’re in is the stuff individuals are dabbling in, you then become a much riskier investment,” claims Dawson.

That tech top five get noticed in annually where in fact the big tech bubble was supposed to have burst. For way too long, pundits was indeed warning that money was in fact pouring to the technology industry, and a reckoning was nigh. That presumption ended up beingn’t quite appropriate; alternatively, technology got real. But there were nevertheless challenges. The investing environment chilled, and stock prices of once-darling equipment organizations plummeted. A retail startup that promised an internet-savvy way of attempting to sell furniture sold itself toward old-fashioned giant it promised to upend. All throughout, these tech five stayed massive—and stable.

Tech as Blue Chip

This is simply not only a market change. It’s a cultural shift within the perception of technology stocks, too. “i do believe this is the first-time these businesses are increasingly being thought to be blue-chip companies, when these have actually tended to be staid, really stable organizations in industries that don’t change that much,” Dawson claims. Yet even  big believers in those staid companies are themselves investing in these new-order leaders, he highlights. Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, unveiled this season that his business had invested greater than a billion dollars’ well worth of stock in Apple—and Berkshire increased its stake in the Cupertino company even further in later months.

Here is the first-time these businesses are increasingly being thought to be blue-chip businesses. Jan Dawson

Definitely, stating that the long-lasting success of tech’s big five is a formality would be silly. The fortunes of businesses rise and fall, while the proof of this is in history books. For Google and Twitter, the marketing marketplace is just so big. Apple is still struggling to find its next big equipment hit. And so on etc.

The greatest, many imminent challenge dealing with these businesses? Just how tech will soon be suffering from a Trump presidency in 2017. But there’s not a way to know just how things will shake out at this time. Trump could deliver on his vow to pull offshore money back, a rise motorist for technology companies. But he may also broadly reduce legislation, a good thing. Or he could put massive stress on Apple to start out manufacturing iPhones in america, a policy that would be both logistically impossible and economically disastrous. It will depend in the larger question of whether Trump’s campaign promises had been literal. But given tech’s initial encounters with all the president-to-be, one thing’s without a doubt: tech plus the government has an embarrassing time from it in 2017.

Return to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.