Silicon Valley's Congressional Hope: Time to sweep away a congressman "who mostly votes the right way"

Silicon Valley hasn't had a real voice in Congress before. We've got a shot at one now though. In about 20 days, voters will go to the polls in a race for a congressional seat for the 17th district, and democrat Ro Khanna has a fighting shot at toppling incumbent Mike Honda. The polls are running in a dead heat, so this is one you should care about. 

There's nothing wrong with Honda — he's an old-line Democrat. Except that's actually the problem. He hasn't done much in the way of defending the things we really care about: Immigration reform, free Internet rights, supporting entrepreneurship, and reforming education. If Silicon Valley can elect Ro, then we as citizens are making a statement that business as usual for the Democratic party just isn't going to fly. 

That's why the San Jose Mercury News has endorsed Ro Khanna as well, saying "Silicon Valley -- whose economy, like the 17th District, stretches into the East Bay -- needs more than a congressman who mostly votes the right way... Silicon Valley's other representatives, Congresswomen Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, and Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, are older than 65, and both are invaluable voices in Washington -- respected leaders on valley issues as well as defenders of progressive values. When they meet with us, they are insightful; we always learn something. This is not the case with Honda."

Ro is one of us. He's committed to reforming immigration so our talented friends who happened to be born elsewhere can still come here to create new businesses and jobs. Startups die every other day because of our antiquated and special-interest-ridden immigration policies. He's on our side when it comes to SOPA, PIPA, net neutrality and a maintaining a free and open Internet. 

If you're in the 17th District (Fremont to Sunnyvale), you have a chance to make history. Register to vote, and consider Ro Khanna for Congress. This race matters, and it's looking like a few hundred votes will swing this one way or another. 

Listen to the people for whom you're building: A low income housing development that chose bath tubs over hot water

I was watching an urban planning documentary called Urbanized on Netflix recently. It brought up a fascinating example of participatory design in the context of building homes. A housing development in Santiago, Chile called Elemental ran into a problem. The builders had to make a tough decision: should they build in hot water heaters, or should they build in bath tubs? The budget could only support one or the other at the outset.

A typical top-down approach would dictate that of course you'd want hot water. A first world view of the situation would say that you'd rather shower standing up with hot water than sit in a bathtub and have to heat water separately. 

Yet that's the exact opposite of what future residents of Elemental actually wanted. Architect Alejandro Aravena went out into communities and talked with residents and discovered what typical bureaucrats would never find - that people moving to the low income housing from slums would unanimously choose bathtubs instead. Hot water heaters and gas furnaces cost money, and are unfamiliar. Bathtubs, on the other hand, were very familiar (in fact what residents typically did in their existing living environments due to the extra privacy) and didn't generate additional energy cost. 

Further, hot water was one of the things that people typically added later, once they had acclimatized to the new living environment and improved their station in life. 

It seemed to me this was the sort of thing you could only tell by actually talking with the people who would use your creations. It is the ideal situation for us to create things for ourselves. But when you aren't doing that, you have to be extra careful about the assumptions and values you bring to the table. 

Always-on video recording will prevent tomorrow's Missouri police state — light is a disinfectant

The ongoing Missouri police fiasco has prompted a lot of discussion about the need for police transparency. My friend Jeff Lonsdale writes:

Active duty police officers need to be automatically recording everything they do. With recordings, incidents such as those happening in Ferguson can be quickly resolved one way or another. When tested in Rialto, California, recording reduced both complaints filed against police officers and the incidents where use of force was required. There will still be cases where police officers use excessive force in murky situations but by and large transparancy via recorded police and citizen interactions should protect the innocent parties, see more guilty parties punished and cause better behavior all around.

Smartphones, wearables, and always-on high bandwidth connectivity is converging in the next ten years to make this happen, not just for police officers, but for private citizens too. 

Always-on video is already shining light in Russia with the omnipresence of on-dash cameras. They say light is the best disinfectant, and that's exactly what video can be in the future. It's time to build. 

Software eats apparel — What MTailor means for how you'll buy clothing in the future

Miles and Rafi are two founders in the current YC batch who just launched their new startup, MTailor. It's a iPhone and iPad app that lets you get accurate measurements of your body so you can order made-to-measure dress shirts that fit you perfectly. You put the iPhone or iPad on the floor at an angle, and the app walks you through the 30 second process of turning around in place in front of the front-facing camera. The amazing thing is that the entire process is 20% more accurate than what a professional tailor would do in person. 

That's pretty damn cool. The founders are Stanford CS and math grads and devised and perfected the computer vision algorithms themselves. In the past similar founders would have tried to find some way to license the tech, but MTailor is building a new brand from scratch. It's an ambitious way for the company to fully create as much value as possible without middlemen and enterprise sales. 

Mass customization is finally hitting the mainstream, thanks to software. In the past it has always been difficult and time consuming for clothing to be made with specific measurements. It was a tedious process to begin with since it was hard for people to get accurate measurements, and even experienced tailors have trouble getting it right. Add a whole lot of waiting to the mix too — it'd take six weeks or more to wait for a shirt to be made. Those two problems taken together reduce demand. And as a result, the cost goes up, even further reducing demand. 

That's where a new software capability can come in, like MTailor's computer vision algorithms, and radically change the equation. Since it's easy to measure yourself, the major stumbling block is removed. And with a steady stream of orders, they can bring the price and wait down. That's exactly what the team has done, coming in at the $69 price point and a 2 week lead time. I was once a die-hard made-to-measure Indochino dress shirt fan, but I know where all my future purchases are coming from. 

That's the power of better, cheaper, faster, and how software eats the giant apparel business. Keep an eye on MTailor and try download their app. It's available right now. 

How a bug in Windows might be costing humanity over 600 years of wasted time per day

There's a Windows bug that I have been hitting for over a year that has driven me insane. My Downloads folder takes 20 seconds to show up in my File Explorer in Windows 8. To fix, I had to set the folder's type to "General Items" instead of "Photos" because Windows was trying to generate thumbnails over and over again. 

A program manager at Microsoft made the wrong decision. Microsoft has been a program manager culture for decades now. (Former president of Windows division Steven Sinofsky writes at length about it here.) PM's at Microsoft have the cat-herding role of trying to make things happen with little authority. As with most things that are started with very good intentions, there are unintended consequences. Bugs like the one above are one of them.

How did a bug like this stay in Windows for years? It's not like they didn't know about it. Someone on the team hit this problem and filed it as a bug in their bug DB. There are a lot of really dedicated software engineers and software testers out there who really do care about building great stuff at Microsoft. But it is the PM who has the unenviable task of sorting through hundreds if not thousands of these types of bugs and figuring out what gets fixed and what doesn't. On the day in question, the PM of the File Explorer probably saw this alongside 50 other bugs that were must-fix. They had a specific date to ship, and a fixed number of engineering resources. They knew their bug count had to glide down to zero by X date, and some bugs had to sadly be resolved "Won't fix." If a PM doesn't hit their schedule and ship, they get fired. This bug had to be punted. 

Say a billion users hit this bug and lose 20 seconds every day -- that's 633 years of human life wasted in the world. Normal people using their computers have no idea why this bug is happening, and just assume the computer is thinking. These wrong calls on small decisions have wide reaching impact when you multiply by the reach of software today.  

Great software is built by people making the right call on thousands of small decisions. We who create software have a responsibility to our users. Make the right choice. Fix the damn bug. And if you run a company that builds software, know better than to put a good person in a role that forces them to make the wrong decision.