Vendor Evaluation: Fill & Download for Free

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am not a legislator. I have never worked for the FDA. Or any business in the electronic vaporizer field, although I have friends who do. I am an interested laymen that has researched this extensively and discussed it with experts, but the following is political and economic commentary rather than an authoritative judgement or legal opinion.They’re trying to kill it, while leaving a narrow window for the tobacco majors to continue selling their third-rate versions, and pretend that it’s just ‘regulation’ by making the death very, very slow. The FDA is claiming that their statutory authority under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which includes issuing a determination (a 'deeming') of what is considered a tobacco product, allows them to class electronic vaporizer products of all kinds as 'tobacco products'.By the wording of the Deeming Regulation the FDA seems to claim that includes not only e-liquids with nicotine extracted from tobacco, but vaporizable liquid with nicotine from any source and even no nicotine at all, are all ‘tobacco products’. And all devices/materials that are used, or can be used, or may be used as components in devices for, the consumption of those liquids. That would start with:Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerin, the major components of e-liquids (used broadly in industry, food service, and medicine).Batteries. They mention specifically 18650 Lithium Ion batteries (used in some flashlights and many laptops, among other applications) but the logic by which they do so would include nearly any battery (3 NiMH rechargeable batteries have the same voltage profile and can be used interchangeably with Li-Ion batteries, voltage is voltage and current is current). Although 18650's are the most common, they are not the only ones used in devices even now.Current/Voltage regulating devices that work in that range (your computing devices are filled with them, back in the days before regulated devices we made 'direct drive' passthroughs that drew their electricity directly from a computer's USB port because it was a regulated 5V and 2 amps).Resistance wire that generates heat when subjected to a current (devices commonly use nickel-chromium alloy, stainless steel, or titanium wire). Obviously, these wires are used in many other applications (and can be purchased in most hardware stores).Any combination of fittings (metal, glass, plastic, and rubber) that could be assembled into a 'tank' for an electronic vaporizer. Or, half of the Plumbing section at Home DepotA unique clause apparently removes 'non-violating use' exemptions, the same exemptions that make 'water pipes' only 'drug paraphernalia' under the law when they contain a drug or are explicitly sold for the consumption of drugs, as long as they can be used for any legal purpose {such as consuming tobacco!}, all of these are regulated under the Deeming Regulation if they can be used as part of an electronic vaporizer, and a seller is apparently in violation if they have been, regardless of any level of knowledge they had.And by the wording of the regulation, literally any other means that has ever been, or will ever be, used to accomplish the function of consuming nicotine through inhalation. Open flames under spoons. Disco fog machines. If someone can figure out a way to use a perfume mister to consume e-liquid, it's covered (except for the NRT nasal sprays, we'll get to that).The over-reach is so blatant that it is obvious that the FDA is making claims as broad and complete as possible in the full awareness that they would not survive challenge, but will be able to deny standing to challenge at least some of them by not enforcing them, or not enforcing them fully, and having their actual enforcement actions and standards seem so comparatively restrained in comparison that the courts (which are typically reluctant to interfere with regulatory bodies to begin with) will be more likely to side with the FDA.Since the penalties of the regulation applies to the sellers and distributors of the violating materials and not to their buyers/users, even if the seller/distributor was not aware of how the materials were going to be used, the apparent goal is that the very broadness will have a chilling effect on sellers, causing them to apply controls on purchasing of whatever the FDA is currently making examples over, allowing them to apply drug-precursor like controls without ever specifying what the controls are or going through any specific regulatory process.You might have to sign a register like that for 'behind the counter' cold symptom products to buy Kanthal wire, 3/4" pipe (happens to be the right size for those 18650 batteries), loose batteries, or even potentially cotton balls, based solely on whether the seller feels exposed to FDA action by selling potential components of electronic vaporizers. It is apparently completely at the FDA's discretion where to apply their enforcement focus, and ignorance of their potential use does not appear to be any defense.All of the ‘tobacco products’ so defined would have to go through a certification process that is patterned after that used for medical devices and drugs (in fact, the Deeming Regulation is so long largely because it repeats the other regulations almost verbatim, with 'tobacco product' substituted for 'medical device'). I have seen estimates that the cost of this process for the applicant would be in the range of $1 million per product, and every significant difference in otherwise identical products would be considered a different product requiring separate certification. Even if that estimate is high by a factor of 5, or even 20, it will represent a major amount of capital for what are typically small businesses.What would be significantly different for this purpose isn't specified, but as the deeming regulation specifically references factors like battery capacity, liquid constituents (including inactive factors like flavor or the exact balance of the PG/VG components of liquids, the shape of devices, and even the colors) one can only assume that the FDA means to take an extremely narrow view (at their discretion). Since there's apparently no way of knowing in advance what would turn out to be significantly different, a failure to start the application process for those differences would mean losing the capacity to sell them (and even being in violation of the regulation if you have sold them during the ‘grace period’, since ignorance is not a defense).One vendor of liquids and equipment has stated in court filings that their existing product line would require hundreds, possibly thousands, of separate filings, for them alone (and they are only one company, not even the largest). The FDA has predicted (and will presumably budget and staff for) a total of 900 applications a year, total, across the entire tobacco products sector (there are already 3000 filings after 1 week). And they have granted a two year 'grace period' in which products awaiting certification may be sold (but only if they have an active application that the FDA decides is relevant). If it should somehow turn out that the FDA is not able to process their application in time, at the end of that two year period they will have to suspend sales until the FDA gets around to it (while still having to fund the tests and trials, as well as pay the lawyers).Interestingly, the regulation contains three routes to a product being permitted:Any tobacco product that has been available for sale in the United States since before February 15, 2007, is grandfathered in and does not even have to apply for certification.Any tobacco product that is 'substantially equivalent' to a product that was available for sale in the US before February 15 2007 has a fast-tracked status that only evaluates if it is 'substantially equivalent', if it is it gets approved without any further tests or evaluations. This is where the 3000 already backlogged requests come from, they are apparently cigarettes, pipe tobaccos, cigars, and Nicotine Replacement Therapy products that are 'substantially equivalent' to pre-2007 versions, but have been released in the last 9 years. Kind of odd that they knew exactly what they needed to do in time to prepare the mountain of paperwork, but certainly that isn’t a sign that they were in the room when the regulation was written. Right?Everything else must go through a complicated process of trials and analysis to prove that they are safer than traditional tobacco products (and do not 'encourage use' of such products, what that means is not defined and is apparently at the sole discretion of the FDA). This is very much like and obviously patterned on the same process required for new medical devices and drugs, but since it is a different regulation under a different statute, it will require a separate staff and oversight apparatus at the FDA (and, as I mentioned, the FDA has grotesquely underestimated the number of applications to the point they will probably be hard pressed to clear the already existing backlog of 'substantially equivalent' products before the grace period expires, even though those require little more than rubberstamping and no actual science or trials need to be run).It's entirely possible that not a single application for an electronic cigarette product will even begin the real process of certification by the time the grace period expires, but will run out the clock as a backlogged application. It's certainly not likely that any significant number of them will have completed it, and any that have not must cease being sold at that time (2 years plus 90 days from May 10, 2016, so August 8 2018). And that is only for those that are even able to begin the process, there is substantial paperwork that has to be prepared (by very expensive lawyers) to even do that. Any product without an application may no longer be sold after 90 days from last Tuesday (August 8 2016). Edit: Apparently the FDA doesn’t even have to accept the application or give any reason for the refusal, so going through the expense of that process may not even get a seller the 2 years of the ‘grace period’.In the case of the hardware, most of it is the product of Chinese firms that are unlikely to see any significant profit incentive in trying to comply with these regulations. The US is only a small part of their market, with Europe and the rest of Asia growing rapidly (and not being nearly so hostile about their potential regulation). As far as I know, there is only one US-based manufacturer of electronic cigarette hardware (Evolv LLC) and even they do their actual manufacturing in China as I understand it. The others are selling 'branded' and sometimes slightly modified versions of Asian manufacturers products (including the companies owned by major tobacco companies, who are using very old designs of inferior quality and performance).It's worth noting that even though the authorizing statute is from 2009, and the deeming regulation didn't even begin drafting until last year, the cutoff date was selected as February 2007. The only significant product type covered under the regulation that was not sold either explicitly or in 'substantially equivalent' form by that date was electronic vaporizers. So any product that actually contains tobacco (rather than a chemically pure refined extract that may or may not have come from a tobacco plant, or theoretically could contain such a chemical) has a unlimited pass to skip the overwhelming bulk and expense of the approval process, but the product that has gotten millions of people away from tobacco use has to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, over and over, proving the same things over and over again: That it isn’t as bad for the users as the products that got the fast track rubber stamp.Oh, and just as a last 'screw you': The deeming of e-liquid as a tobacco product for the purposes of the 2009 act means that no e-liquid that contains any flavors other than tobacco and menthol may be sold. Period. Not clear if that is after the 90 day window or the 2 year 90 days, but since no flavored product can get approval, it probably doesn't matter.Apparently, adults aren’t supposed to like things that don't taste as if they are licking an ashtray while sucking on a tic-tac. At least, they are no longer going to be permitted to have a choice. Given the wording, it is apparently possible that legal e-liquids may actually have to taste like tobacco, which bizarrely enough may mean that tobacco extracts that include tar and all the other nasty chemicals we switched to vaping to escape will have to be added to e-liquids, increasing their health risks.Best government regulation money can buy, I guess.

Google and Amazon didn’t always seem like competitors, did they? Google is in the business of selling of ads, Amazon in the business of delivering goods. Google seems much more of a technology company than Amazon. But perhaps this research will amaze you, eh?Lately, though, those businesses have converged. The first way this is happening is simple: Google is getting into the market for on-demand goods. It launched a same-day delivery service, Google Shopping Express, in the Bay Area in 2013 and expanded it to customers in Manhattan and West Los Angeles in May. Recently, Google announced that its service is rolling out to Chicago, Boston, and Washington with a shorter name (Google Express), a more colorful logo, and a newly defined pricing plan.Related post: Collaboration and Partnerships Are Key to Business Growth"Many people think our main competition is Bing or Yahoo," Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairperson, said this week in Berlin. "But our biggest search competitor is Amazon."Schmidt likely intended to persuade a skeptical European audience that Google is not all powerful and faces more competition than some might assume. Even so, he offered the clearest comments yet on how Google views Amazon as a top competitor.Google's 'Rivalry' With Amazon? It's Complicated, Google's 'Rivalry' With Amazon? It's Complicated"People don’t think of Amazon as search, but if you are looking for something to buy, you are more often than not looking for it on Amazon," Schmidt continued in his speech. "They are obviously more focused on the commerce side of the equation, but, at their roots, they are answering users’ questions and searches, just as we are."As two of the largest Internet technology companies, Google and Amazon have inevitably brushed up against each other over the years, but the overlap between them has arguably become more pronounced in recent months.BackgroundAt the most fundamental level, both Amazon and Google want to be the top online destination for people searching for items to buy. They want to control as much of the experience around that search, by owning the devices shop with and in some cases controlling the fulfillment process.Online shopping has been Amazon's core focus from the start, but the company must invest in new areas to keep up with tech trends and ward off competitors. Google, on the other hand, has come to recognize shopping as a key user search activity and one that marketers are intensely focused on when placing ads."The competition for Google is not only for direct advertising dollars but people going directly to Amazon and bypassing Google’s search network," says Yory Wurmser, a media and marketing analyst with eMarketer, who notes that this is even more of an issue for Google in a mobile-first world. "The head-to-head competition is growing."Cloud computingPerhaps the most high-profile area of competition between the two involves cloud computing and data service efforts — particularly the Amazon Web Services arm of Amazon.In technology, it’s sometimes good to let a pioneer figure out the pitfalls of a new market. Apple’s iPod transformed music listening after countless lesser MP3 players failed to make a real dent.Google is now trying to do something similar in cloud computing. The company last month announced price cuts that made its cloud services cheaper than Amazon’s, the leader in cloud services for businesses. At almost the same time, Google orchestrated a flurry of coverage of its cloud services.But whereas music players were a fragmented industry when the iPod appeared, in cloud computing Google is playing catch-up with a single market leader, Amazon, that has a track record of destroying incumbents in every industry it gets into.What Google has in its favor, besides a sheer technical expertise, is that it already runs the biggest cloud-computing operation in the world—just that it puts most of it to a different use. The resulting battle is likely to be epic, and its outcome determines nothing less than who will control the internet.“The cloud” is a term so nebulous it hardly does justice to the specifics of Google’s and Amazon’s respective strategies. Generically, the cloud is just a vast mass of computers connected to the internet, on which people or companies can rent processing power or data storage as they need it. It’s used for everything from hosting websites to storing archives to running massive data-crunching operations.Unless you work in technology or corporate logistics, you might not have known that Amazon was ahead of Google in the cloud business. Most consumers will have encountered the cloud in the form of services where Google is strong—email (Gmail), document storage (Google Drive), and the like. But Amazon Web Services has for years been the front-runner in the business of renting computer power to companies.To understand the scale of the war brewing between them, it helps to understand that what Amazon and Google are contesting is who gets to eat a bigger portion of the total corporate information-technology pie. All the servers that run the whole of the internet, all the software used by companies the world over, and all the other IT services companies hire others to provide, or which they provide internally, will be worth some $1.4 trillion in 2014. This is according to Gartner Research—some six times Google and Amazon’s combined annual revenue last year. Not surprisingly, both companies have said at one point or another that this new revenue stream has the potential to be larger than all their current sources of income.Amazon and Google are in an epic battle to dominate the .., Amazon and Google are in an epic battle to dominate the cloud—and Amazon may already have wonBut wait, you say; that stuff isn’t all in the cloud. Most IT services are still provided much closer to where they are used, on PCs themselves or in “private clouds” run by companies and their contractors. (For example, IDC reports that only 13% of companies’ data is currently stored in the cloud.) But if the advocates of cloud computing are right, some day most of that spending will be on software that runs on remote computers controlled by internet giants.When that time comes, the entire world’s business IT needs will be delivered as a service, like electricity; you won’t much care where it was generated, as long as the supply is reliable. And Google and Amazon both want to be the utility company that provides it—minus the government regulation that usually attends utilitiesSearchFor years now, Amazon has been considered the biggest threat to possibly erode Google's core search-advertising business. Google's search business makes the most money when people use it to search for products they intend to buy online.But a lot of those people are increasingly going straight to Amazon to search for products, bypassing Google's search ads in their purchasing process.As more shoppers move to mobile, they often use Amazon's standalone app to buy things, further pressuring Google's search business.And new data from Morgan Stanley suggests the number of Amazon's app users is growing fast. Amazon and Walmart saw more than half of its growth in mobile traffic come from app users. That means the mobile shoppers who used to have Google as a starting point on their smartphones are going straight to Amazon apps instead.Morgan Stanley research has shown Amazon and Walmart get a surprisingly low amount of mobile traffic from web browsers."Only two retailers — Amazon and Walmart drove over 50% of their mobile traffic growth from app users," Morgan Stanley wrote. "To us, this is positive for these two players as over time we believe larger app audiences can lead to lower long-term customer acquisition costs, stickier customer bases, and a greater share of consumer wallet."Also, given these two players' size and marketplace structure, this is a potential risk for Google that should be monitored," it added.But Morgan Stanley's note wasn't all that discouraging for Google. In fact, it noted that Google is in a great position moving forward because the overall mobile-browser traffic is twice the size of the app market while growing 1.2 times faster. Plus, 30% of the top 30 retailers don't even have a big enough app user base to be measured yet, reflecting the slow adoption rate of apps in the larger retail market.Still, the fact that two of the world's largest retailers, with a combined market cap of nearly $500 billion, are driving more than half of their mobile growth through their apps is a telling sign of where mobile commerce is headed — and something Google has got to be worried about.On-line advertisingGoogle is king of online ads, but because Amazon is one of Google’s biggest customers, with massive buys on its AdWords platform to market its wares, some say Jeff Bezos & co. are looking to go their way to save cash — and make a bit more for Amazon.Late in 2014, reports emerged that Amazon was working on an advertising platform that will allow it to sell ads and place them on its site as well as affiliates’.Given the move towards “programmatic” advertising, where websites of all shapes and sizes prefer to go through the main vendor of ads instead of selling individual accounts, the timing is right. But can Amazon compete with Google here? That remains to be seen.Of course, difficult is never impossible when it comes to technology companies such as these two.On-line shoppingNot to be outdone, Google has been cooking up some e-commerce initiatives of its own to compete with Amazon on its home turf. In the last year or so we’ve seen same-day delivery service launched via Google Express, as well as hopes to roll out a “buy now” button on its search results for various products.Now, none of these efforts are big contributors just yet. But Google Express seems to have been a hit with consumers in test markets like San Francisco and New York, since Google recently added Chicago, Boston, and Washington, D.C., to the list of markets it serves. And if it’s a logical argument that Amazon should leverage its e-commerce audience to sell ads, then it’s equally logical that Google should leverage is massive search audience to sell products online.Yes selling products directly instead of simply pointing customers to the right site — frequently Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more itself? That seems an idea with big potential.But who knows what the future holds. Right now, each tech giant seems equally capable of winning these three turf wars.Same day deliveryGoogle is making same-day delivery on Google Express available for three different prices: a flat rate of $4.99 per order, a monthly membership fee of $10, or an annual membership fee of $95. These numbers are hardly incidental—$95 is a shade cheaper than the $99 fee for a yearlong membership on Amazon Prime and significantly less than the $299 fee for Amazon Prime Fresh, a same-day delivery service for groceries and other “eligible orders” more than $35 on Amazon. Note that Amazon's same-day delivery option is also available in 14 cities to Prime members for a flat $5.99 fee.The two services have some differences. Google's is exclusively for delivery, while benefits for members of Amazon Prime include unlimited music and video streaming from Amazon's collections and one free Kindle rental a month. Google also doesn't have its massive warehouses like Amazon does, but instead works with local merchants (Barnes & Noble, Fairway, PetSmart, Staples, Walgreens, and Target, to name a few) to gather and deliver goods to customers.Think about it, though. Google Express might not be about delivery—it might be about protecting Google’s core business.Google's investment in its same-day delivery service, with a commitment rumored to be as much as $500 million, is certainly its boldest bet yet on this front. Google Express and Google Shopping, in general, is Google aligning with retailers to fight against Amazon. It's a way for Google to be a service provider for retailers. Perhaps the most obvious example of that was Google partnering with Barnes & Noble to deliver books.New venturesGoogle has stepped up competition with Amazon in online video, home service referrals. Amazon is rapidly expanding new services and Google is hot on its heels, aiming to compete with the e-commerce giant on home service referrals and online video. The competition will mean greater convenience for consumers.Recently Google announced to told video makers that it would offer a premium, subscription-only version of YouTube that would allow viewers to avoid watching advertisements, according to Bloomberg. The revenue from the subscriptions would be shared between Google and the video creators.A free-to-viewers version, which would include ads, would still exist, but video creators would be required to agree to new terms of service to post their work to the site; video creators would continue to receive a portion of the revenue from the ads. An interesting development, don’t you think?This new paid offering will generate a new source of revenue that will supplement the fast growing advertising revenue.YouTube is the second-largest source of Web-streaming traffic next to Netflix, according to data from Sandvine network management provider, while video on Amazon Prime ranks at a distant eighth place.But the new terms of service may make it more difficult for upcoming artists or filmmakers to share their work the way they want to, which may drive them away from YouTube, says Greg Ireland, a research manager in the multi-screen video program at market research firm the International Data Corporation.Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has diversified the online shopping platform he launched in 1995 into new services, including an attempt to broaden the audience of its Prime online video platform by debuting the Amazon Fire Phone last year. The Fire Phone had a lackluster debut, but it showed Bezos’ resolve to compete.The latest attempt to diversify the company is Amazon Home Services, a platform similar to Angie’s List or Yelp which will allow its vast Internet audience to evaluate and connect with providers of everything from yoga classes to voice lessons and home repair. Amazon will rank professionals and establish a pool of referrals; the service will be offered in 41 cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Houston, Boston, Chicago and Washington, D.C.Google may also be ready to leverage search data to allow users to connect more directly with the home service professionals they seek. This service, which would compete with Amazon Home Services, may be announced during the upcoming Google I/O developer conference on May 28, BuzzFeed reports.Mike Schoultz is the founder of Digital Spark Marketing, a digital marketing and customer service agency. With 40 years of business experience, he writes about topics that relate to improving the performance of business. Go to Amazon to obtain a copy of his latest book, Exploring New Age Marketing. It focuses on using the best examples to teach new age marketing … lots to learn. Find them on G+, Twitter, and LinkedIn

"It was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness... season of Light, ...season of Darkness, ....spring of hope, ....winter of despair" A tale of two cities, Charles DickensDepending on what color you wear on your sleeve, your mileage (and faith in the democratic process) may vary today. Welcome to the tale of the two cities.As the UK woke up to a rainy cold gloomy morning made somber by events across the pond, it was a time for reflection for many of us. Things that some of us had predicted to #NeverTrump happen, happened. While still digesting the news, I could not help but marvel at how prone to confirmation bias we are, as individuals.It is still too early to come out with a definitive analysis of how the tide turned the way it did. Also, this post is not about labeling voters a certain way or being in denial – we have enough time to see the 5 stages of grief unfold from all quarters of the democratic establishment. That’s for the latter part of this week.It is instead about realizing the fallacy of human intuition and the introduction of bias in statistical methods, especially when applied to situations where the human modeler is emotionally invested in the outcome – Trump over Hillary, iOS over Android, et al. For kicks, try having a conversation with Apple fan-persons (even while trash talking, be PC) and ask them why a Mac is better than a windows machine when most things are done over a browser now anyways – and see them justify their qualitative preferences for design with unreliable data or fuming at the mouth.In data, we believe(d)As a career analyst and a strong believer in signals generated by data, I have always valued statistical/machine learning methods over gut-feel. I have advocated (and continue to advocate) the dire need for organizations to be more data-driven and add rigor to decision making processes. As is customary, I had consumed an overdose of election numbers and predictions prior to the event. One of the prominent ones was Nate Silver, (self?) promoted pollster of the day, who advertises his website five-thirty-eight thus: FiveThirtyEight | Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight uses statistical analysis — hard numbers — to tell compelling stories about politics, sports, science, economics and culture.This is what he predicted.Source: 2016 Election Forecast | FiveThirtyEightA seminal author in the mathematics of probabilities and the author of “The Black Swan: Impact of the Highly Improbable”, Nassem Nicholas Taleb (NNT), called out the problems with Nate’s analysis back in August.NNT, however, did not hazard a contrarian guess or solidify his position, instead going on record to say that a Trump win is 'also' likely. There have also been recent articles from statistics professors on why Nate Silver’s method is faulty, although with the benefit of hindsight many things appear clearer.For me, today’s decision was a sober reminder the even the best of analytical techniques, statistics, data mining, machine learning, or big data analytics do not guarantee a thorough understanding of voter/customer sentiments and resulting action. To expect that all real-world events neatly conform to a predictable pattern is in itself a fallacy.Today’s revelation is also a sharp reminder to me, and possibly many of you, to revise some assumptions that underlie most data-driven approaches to decision-making, whether it be in business or in poll calling. Namely:The past may not always be a predictor of the future – Nate Silver was right up to the point he wasn’t.Source: Electoral PrecedentAlso,There is never enough/all of the data to complete a picture, which is why statistical/machine learning methods are used. Also, conclusions are rarely derived using all the data but a representative sample is usedCorrelation does not imply causationThe data is otherwise clean, and reliable, and captures true intent – with Trump supporters, there was a strong disincentive to openly admit their position. Also, most data didn't capture tacit knowledge/intent.There has been a factoring for context – people who built the model understand the industry/consumer/voter in-depthThere is a method to the madness – some processes, such as ones based on theoretical calculations, just cannot be put into a neat little patternMy point here is that right up to the event, statisticians, market watchers, as well as international stock markets and communities reinforced the belief that there was a clear mandate and they knew what it was. More data was found and massaged to reinforce their hypothesis and naysayers were quickly shot down (Notably, Scott Adams and Michael Moore). Within my own echo chamber, amplified by a very left-leaning community on Quora, I was confident that I had called the election right. A lot of us forgot that we have been similarly wrong about Brexit.Does that mean we should do away with the analytical method once and for all?If we can’t trust data/analytics, why invest in it at all?Not at all.Instead, use AI/machine learning to recognize inherent and cognitive biases in analysis andhow we make decisions.In fact, today may be the best day to ponder about the applicability of AI to real-world problems and whether it can help us be cognizant of and guard against our cognitive biases. Trained over time, powered by near-unlimited IT infrastructure on the cloud, and given access to ‘all’ the data and not a sample, machine learning and artificial intelligence can likely recognize cognitive biases in models (and individuals) and show us a range scenarios instead of one clear result. It doesn’t just stop at identifying cognitive bias though. There are several other biases Bias (statistics) - Wikipedia that all of us carry.Bias-aware/free AI offeringsDeveloping a bias detector is not a new idea. IBM has been promoting ‘unbiased’ or ‘bias-aware’ as a virtue of its IBM Watson platform for quite a while. They are not alone. Mega-vendors are launching machine learning and “intelligent applications” initiatives by the dozen this year, with recent ones including Oracle (September 2016 at OpenWorld) , SAP (November 2016 TechEd Barcelona), Salesforce Einstein (timed to release before OOW16). Services providers such as Accenture and Wipro HOLMES (rather cheeky!) are also at the forefront of this movement, combining cognitive computing and deep industry expertise and applying it to a business pain-point, with the potential to unlock significant business value.Today’s announcement reinforces my belief that I could have a more productive discussion with AI enthusiasts and evangelists if I was to think about AI this way:“This machine can tell me how I think” instead of ‘It will be a hot day in hell before I let a machine tell me what to think’.What happens now? The political theatrics will dampen, for the time being and markets will gradually stabilizeAfter the initial stages of grief have passed, the democratic machinery will likely pick itself up and start to regroup. The fact that the Senate, House, and the Supreme Court are all red or will be in the future actually gives the Republicans a greater chance at bringing about sweeping policy changes than the previous administration, if they so wish. There will a large number of focused issues that will be contested by democrats now more than ever, such as immigration reform and women’s health.On the financial markets front, the shock dip of currencies and markets is likely temporary; based on fundamentals the US economy and consumer confidence are the largest factors for investment, and while the US President is an extremely influential person he/she does not directly control these things. The international community will be watchful and evaluate decisions on a case by case basis for the next few weeks/months.On the business front, it will be business as usual. Some sales cycles may lengthen, and if you are working with the government there might be some teething issues. Obamacare will likely be repealed.My one big prediction though is that an AI/ML driven system will replace Nate Silver soon. When that company/product materializes, I will either be its CEO, or suing its CEO for stealing my idea."Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer."Also: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-elections-cognitive-biases-rise-artificial-surya-mukherjee?trk=prof-post