Skip to Content

Detox-in-a-Box: honestly?

Had to post this.

Radio 4’s Today programme just hosted a discussion between Dr Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Science and Nas Amir Ahmadi, managing director of Detox in a Box. Dr Goldacre’s point was that Detox programmes are shallow marketing and have no measurable effect on health. He went further to say that they may actually dis-empower people by encouraging a lot of effort and spending a lot of money which has no effect. Anyway, he cited a line on Detox in a Box’s website which claims their product is effective at helping the body reduce levels of “heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadminum [sic.], nickel, arsenic, and aluminum” and asked Nas Amir Ahmadi to cite evidence that her product reduced cadmium. Ahmadi replied by saying that Goldacre must have been looking at the wrong website because those things were not mentioned on hers.

Enter Google to the fray, and the search phrase “detox in a box” heavy metals, which highlight a page from Detox in a Box’s website containing exactly what Dr Goldacre said it did:

One of the most complex detoxification functions is against heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadminum, nickel, arsenic, and aluminum.”

I imagine the company may revise this page in a hurry after the interview, so I took a composite screenshot of the entire page for posterity. Aren’t I the helpful sort?

Avoid forums, join communities

One sweeping generalisation my experiences of 2008 have helped me to make is that forums provide heat whilst communities provide light.

By forum, I mean that trusty bulletin-board style discussion space we know and love. Well, maybe the L-word is a bit too strong. By community (and I’m talking online here), I mean a bunch of people sharing a similar interest or approach. Communities can exist in forum software, but they are also increasingly found on social networking sites.

In been a member of two forums this year, two communities and one thing that possibly has a foot in each camp. I don’t think I’m on to anything new here, but forums seem inherently designed for conflict. Forums are full of people defending points of view, or attacking other points of view. Forums I’ve particularly come to fear and loathe are those where people are discussing politics or religion. In meatspace, a broad range of people is generally a great thing. But that’s because being face to face with others reminds us that we’re discussing the issue with another human being. Take away the personal contact, and all hell commonly breaks loose. The object of the exercise becomes to discredit, not to understand.

This is where you need community. A true community is a place where people seek understanding first. It is not something you can easily make, and you can easily damage it if you do not care about others in it.

I don’t think there is an easy way to engineer a community. I think that if the proposition for a group is that of giving and receiving help, a community is likely to form—given time. Conversely, if the proposition is simply discussion, I think the group will soon attract those who enjoy argument and self-aggrandisement.

In fairness, I put my hand up and admit I have been a guilty party in several forum conflicts in 2008. But I’ve also benefited beyond measure from at least one of the two communities of which I’m a member. And so I plead: ask me for help, don’t ask me what I think!

We're the big three. We don't need to compete

You wouldn't buy our shitty cars

You probably thought it was smart to buy a foreign import of superior quality, with better mileage and resale value. Maybe you even thought that years of market share loss might prod us into rethinking our process and redesigning our products with better quality in mind. but you forgot one thing: we spend a shitload of money on lobbyists. So now you’re out $25 billion, plus the cost of your Subaru. Maybe next time you’ll buy American like a real man. Either way, we’re cool.

We’re the big three. We don’t need to compete.”

Source: The Beast

Vimperator may just cure my Opera addiction

No, I’m not talking about fat ladies singing. For many years, I’ve used the Opera web browser. I started off with Opera back in about 2000 when I was using Windows because of the security problems with Internet Explorer, and because the other main alternatives at that time were Netscape or Mozilla which seemed rather bloated and slow to me. Later on, Mozilla Firefox came on to the scene, but it was still slower than Opera, and didn’t have the sheer convenience and joy that Opera has for heavy keyboard users. Even today, now that Firefox has caught up with Opera in terms of speed and performance—perhaps even slightly overtaken—it’s still just plain awkward to use with the keyboard.

That was until I decided to give Vimperator a proper run for its money. It’s basically an add-on for Firefox that makes Firefox look and behave a lot like the popular command-line text editor, Vim. Vim is entirely keyboard driven, so Vimperator makes Firefox entirely keyboard accessible too. I think Vimperator might just save my life—not only matching Opera for its keyboard friendliness, but outstripping it completely and allowing me to do even more with my keyboard.

Woo hooo!

I also came across quite a nice little line on the Vimperator wiki. Vimperator removes all of the buttons and menus from the Firefox interface because they’re just not necessary for keyboard users (I already remove the buttons and menus from my Opera configuration). The Vimperator position seems to be, “What? So the 80+ buttons on your keyboard aren’t enough for you?”

Should businesses aim to be indispensible?

I went to a Business Link Yorkshire seminar on sales today, to learn how to make sales and keep existing clients. It was a very good event. Business Link are a great bunch of people.

However, one of the last slides provoked a strong reaction in me. These were the two final tactics under a list of tips for keeping customers:

Do you have a technology which you can embed in your customers’ systems?

Can you lock your customer into a long term contract with penalties for termination?

I thought that these were both very dangerous tactics which raise issues of business ethics.

Embedding proprietary software in clients’ systems could be akin to spyware or malware. Is there a practical need for it? Does the client fully appreciate what her software is doing, and how her future choices may be limited by the closed nature of a software system?

And on the second point, is there a justification for locking people into long contracts, and for applying penalties if they wish to end the relationship? In the case of phone companies offering “free” hardware with long-term contracts, I think this is fair enough—the company is clearly only able to “give” you a phone because you agree to pay for it over a period of time through your monthly contract payments. Likewise, I can imagine large-scale website development projects where the cost of development is actually part of a long-term relationship between developer and client.

But citing these strategies as techniques for keeping customers really does seem deeply unethical to me. They may be practical solutions which help manage software systems or help finance a long-term project. But as sales techniques I submit that they could to lead to the vendor deliberately manipulating their product or their client to force ongoing sales.

In any case, I think such strategies are counter-productive. Of all the relationships I’ve had with suppliers, those where the supplier had tried to lock me in or limit my choices have resulted in a souring of the relationship—often to a point where I would not willingly do business with them again. Companies which allow me to leave easily and freely are much more likely to get me back if I decide they provide a product or service I need in the future.

At the beginning of the seminar, the leader told us that sales very much isn’t about forcing people to buy things they don’t want, but rather about helping them get the things they need. With these two strategies for lock-in, I think he contradicted himself.

What's luck got to do with it?

Barack Obama I’ve nearly recovered from the sleep lost by staying up into Tuesday night to listen to the United States elections on the Radio. It felt very exciting and historic, although I did wonder if I was one of the “people huddling by their radios in the forgotten corners of the world” that Mr. Obama mentioned in his first speech as President Elect. I had a good chuckle at that—one slightly patronising note, in what was otherwise an energising and inspiring speech.

I’ve noticed some cynical responses to the news around the place though. A Facebook acquaintance likened Barak Obama to Tony Blair, and was steeling himself for a similar betrayal. This hardly seems a fair comparison to me. Mr. Obama has quite an impressive track record of direct involvement in progressive community-based projects and campaigns. And he seems much more interested in direct, practical interventions to improve people’s lives, than in a quasi-religious attachment to the doctrines of free-market economics. Mr. Blair seemed to have his head stuck in a cloud most of the time, where Obama’s seems firmly planted on his shoulders.

I’ve also read some slightly po-faced coverage on the BBC: Kevin Connolly accepting Obama’s many, enviable gifts, but also attributing his success in the election to some “lucky breaks”. The correspondant implies that only a fair helping of luck will enable Mr. Obama to succeed with his ambitious programme of change.

This really got me thinking about luck. I guess you could call the economic crisis lucky if it makes your opposition look bad. But is it still lucky that your first job in office is to clear up the mess? Rising, as always, to the occasion, The Onion yeserday claimed America gives worst job in Country to a Black Man. Not a bad point, that ;)

I think the maxim a lot of people overlook is that luck is where preparation meets opportunity. And I think it is this that is at the core of Mr. Obama’s approach, his message, his intentions, and (so far) his success. This is a man who has the courage to believe his country can become something that most would have deemed impossible until Wednesday morning. He will not quickly realise his goal, and it may never materialise to the full extent he yearns for. But he knows that he has two choices. He can either decide that his goal is so unlikely that it is not worth giving his life to. Or he can decide to spend his life working towards it anyway, accepting the difficulties, but setting himself to the task. The later choice is the one he has made, and which many, many people will equate with naivety—perhaps believing that such courage, while impressive and commendable, is more akin to tragic stupidity. But this demonstrates the way those people misunterstand luck. If Mr. Obama continues to hold to his ideals, and continues to work hard to create the preconditions for those ideals to exist, the people of America may be in just the right position to take advantage of good situations when they arise, and move closer to being the kind of society Mr. Obama dreams of. Luck, looked at like this, has an element of predictability about it. The more you try something, the more likely you will succeed. Try it enough, and I would argue you make it almost inevitable.

This is where I take my inspiration. Luck is what we call it when good things happen. Good and bad things happen to all people, and to all nations. As an entreprenuer, I have often felt cynicism and doubt. When a string of bad things happen, running one’s own business can seem like an impossible dream. But I have also discovered that I can make my own luck. I know that if I try hard enough, and keep trying, good things will happen too, and I’ll will be prepared and resourced to take advantage of them. I believe this to be common sense that any successful person will echo.