Of the lab, the most definitive sections within are the Logic Gates: AND Gates, XOR Gates, and NOT Gates. Beginning, a NOT Gate allows for the input to be reversed (1 to 0, 0 to 1). AND Gates requires two inputs to be of high value (1), or else the output will be of 0. Finally, the XOR Gate allows for the addition between two inputs(0+1=1, 1+1=0).

Throughout the lab, these are the main factors towards the experiment, in which test the possible forms of output when these three logic gates are used. These include the binary adder and flip flop circuits.  These demonstrate not only the different effects it has on the outcome, but also how the circuits may also come together and affect the flow of the input, and subsequently, the outcome.

To start, we begin the evaluation of the insertion sorting method. With this method, the algorithm creates a sorting array of which involves such going through one frame at a time. As such, this demonstrates inefficiency due to a number of arrays that form a common algorithm, as such proving to be taxing work, much like how a person is required to solve such a complex problem without a computer’s productivity.

Another sorting algorithm is the permutation method. Though this method, the function creates the possible outcomes of the input’s integration. Through which, it sets up the paradigm. After, with these, it searches through the possible solutions until the sorted solution is identified. However, this itself is also inefficient, as the requirement to sort the algorithm into the correct array requires numerous attempts, or which result in the necessary time to sort the algorithms and to locate the correct solution.

Finally, we arrive at the merge sorting algorithm, in which an algorithm is sorted through the method of dividing between the variables, which allows for the order of the elements, and subsequently an equal between the input and output. This method is the most efficient out of the three as to how it allows for the answer to be reached through sorting the array, ultimately coming to the output through the process of elimination, narrowing down the answer.

Ultimately, this shows the efficiency of merging over both insertion and permutation, as to how the former allows for the algorithm to be solved through equal input and output, whereas the other two really on more step by step processes that make them inefficient.

First of all, one thing that all groups had in common was the constant help from search engines.  Since we only covered basic concepts from the tools available to us, every group used Google to gather information on the background, application, and debugging of their respective programs. In our group, we constantly used Google to search for courses on how to write and implement HTML code for our personal portfolio website. In an age where information is at our fingertips, the learning process is slowly separated from only being taught in colleges to being accessible online. This way, it is possible for anyone to learn anything new as long as they have the time and internet access needed to learn.

Apart from the code itself, most projects served a particular purpose to solve or explain a problem. Unlike the way that Computer Scientists are portrayed in mass media, they do not just sit and write code all day for a boring purpose. For example, Kate’s project expanded beyond learning how to write HTML to teaching others about the consequences of putting our information online. Therefore, coding is not just about code; instead, it is about the purpose for which the code is written for that improves or damages our society.

Through this analysis of the project presentations, I learned that technology-related projects share two things in common: using search engines to gather new information, and writing code to solve a particular problem.

I realized that like clothes, we can see technology as an extension of ourselves.  In some ways nakedness can make one feel less human and more animal.  Our humanness is often characterized by these ingenious inventions which account for the limits of our physical body.  A sweater serves the purpose of retaining and producing warmth and clothing in the future might perform that same task but in a more advanced way.

The conversation about the Apple watch and the Fitbit again brought up the ethical dilemma of data privacy.  Now your computer doesn’t just have information on what you think, and what you like, it can now gather large amounts of data on your physical state.  It can monitor your mood through your pulse and perhaps in the future be used to create specific sorts of experiences tailored directly to your emotional state.  

All of this made me wonder, what is our responsibility to ourselves if even our clothing might one day do all of this for us.  Where do we begin to claim our experience of our minds and our bodies when there is tech that may very well know us better than we know ourselves in the form of blood pressure and beats per minute.  I will never be gathering as much data about myself as my computer is.  At some point will the computer be able to tell me who I am physically and mentally better than I can tell myself.

Dr. Forester brought up the phrase “the quantified self” and I’m starting to grasp that through algorithms and data collection my technology is able to experience me in a quantified form.  I know that I do not understand myself or conceive of myself in a quantified state so my computer or my Apple Watch are the objects which have access to that form of me, to the patterns that I would never be able to see.

Another thing I thought was really interesting was this striving by the tech industry to create a frictionless experience which is formed by using large amounts of data on us to create and ideal, individualized online environment.  In this environment created exactly from us there is apparently the illusion of simple solutions.  Dr. Forester described it as a dystopian idea which was a bit strange to me, bit then it sort of called me back to reading Brave New World awhile back.  It makes me wonder if by taking paths of ease we are actively destroying our own sense of purpose.  The talk touched on these images in the media where robots eventually leave humans behind and humans themselves finally become the obsolete technology.  It’s honestly a bit disheartening to imagine such a world.

I imagine all of this goes back to the first point about technological innovations being driven by capitalistic gains.  On the other hand, increased tech should open up the door to new opportunities, but I suppose an expanded human experience is only going to come about if we actively make it a goal.

She evaluated one of the most common narratives of robots replacing human labor which is the image of the trucking industry being replaced with self-driving vehicles.  She stated that it was unrealistic for the trucking industry to automatically overhaul and automate completely when so much revenue has already been spent on the already existing trucks which work perfectly fine.  From a rational economic standpoint it doesn’t make sense for the industry to completely overhaul itself and for these same reasons automation across most industries is likely to be gradual.

I was surprised to find out that we were actually at record lows in technological innovation, probably because the media is constantly bombarding us with futuristic ideals.  I realized that if we are at record lows in terms of technological innovation, then I probably don’t have a good image of what a technological revolution looks like even though I felt as if I did.

Even if automation was argued to not be much of a concern, Dr. Shierholz did enlighten me to other possible concerns.  I hadn’t known that up until the past few decades wages and productivity rose together in a linear fashion, and now even though productivity has risen significantly, wages have flat-lined.  The graph was a bit disheartening to see and then the realization that all of the increased revenue as a result of that productivity was going to the top 10 percent but most of all the top 1 percent was a shock.  Since I’m not well versed in economic theory, it made me wonder whether or not this is to be expected and what are the implications of this sort of situation on a broad scale.

Automation, I suppose, will continue to increase productivity, but who is entitled to those increased economic gains?

Her talk then transitioned into a discussion of the relationship between fashion and art or what we might call “high fashion.” Dr Foerster showed a skirt by Hussein Chalayan a designer who created a coffee table skirt (http://museumarteutil.net/projects/coffee-table-skirt/.) This took the talk toward the idea of “wearables” and the Internet of Things (IOT.) She referenced medical technology such as shirts designed for infants that can detect the arrest of breathing and thus help to curb infant mortality.

I was able to ask a question which went something like, “There is all sorts of empirical research that suggests that smartphones are bad for our mental health. That they leach our attention and ability to focus even when not in use. Should we be more concerned about wearables, what is so different about the transition from iphone to iwatch or google glass?”

Dr Foerster’s response was that technology has already infiltrated and mediated the way in which we experience the world (showing her phenomenological dispositions). She didn’t quite take a stance one the matter as I was hoping she might, but did offer a cautionary response suggesting that because the tech is so new (only a few decades), we should be wary of the potential risks.

This new reality made me wary of all the images I have of myself online and how accessible they are.  It was mentioned in class that photos stored in Google Photos aren’t even private and that they can be accessed by anyone who has the url.  Since I’ve been relying on Google Photos for years now in order to save space on my devices, I realize that there are a heck of a lot of images of me online and that if someone was really diligent they could possibly use Deepfake technology in order to manufacture fake media of me.

All of our conversations have made me think of the concept of our virtual selves, our digital footprints, and how vulnerable these recreations of ourselves are to manipulation.  If you know enough about the virtual identity of a person and their behavior, then you can know enough to sell something to the physical person.  If you have access to enough images of a person online you can place them in them in situations virtually which they would never allow themselves to physically be in.  You can incriminate or bankrupt another person through the use of their banking information and social security numbers.

On some level, the whole idea of regulating the internet seems like the old effort to tame the Wild West, but my instinct is that taming something in a virtual space is a very different challenge than taming a physical space, and I’m somewhat skeptical of our ability to do so.

Its my conclusion that things are moving much faster than we may think making the task of regulation even more difficult. Such is the case with the deep fake videos. The same software that can help take these videos down is also the same technology used to make them more sleeker, faster and less detectable as being fake content. Bots on the internet make it harder to track down white supremacists because these same bots instigate and often create more supremacists in their path than they actually stop.

Although most of the students in the class are not Computer Science majors, but CSC105 is a class worthy of explaining low-level concepts in a fun and interactive way. Although it is not easy to explain concepts like machine language and sorting algorithms, they separate a good from a great programmer. In essence, this class prepares us with a solid foundation for the endeavor of a Computer Science major.

When we discussed the ethics of writing code, there is a fine line between writing code aimed at improving or harming society. In fact, an article that we read covers the perspective of a programmer writing code for the military, which is used to target and kill people. After the reading and the lecture of ethics, I wondered what my code can do to better society, but also what ways it can be used to inflict harm. Just like academics in other fields discover and reviewing new information about their areas of study, programmers take a big role in the future of the Digital Age. Therefore, I wonder how code can be determined as good or bad since one program can do both depending on the user.