This article is the first in a four-part series, where we will look deeper into the relationship between data mesh and privacy. The series will cover: How a data mesh architecture can support better data privacy controls. How to shift from a centralized governance model to a federated approach. How to focus on automation as a cornerstone of your governance strategy. How to bake privacy tech into your self-service platform approach.
when will the other parts be published?
The data mesh paradigm allows us to see data in a new way
moet het boek Data Mesh nog lezen (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/data-mesh/9781492092384/) maar lijkt goed aan te sluiten bij de gedachten achter de EU Dataspaces.
Privacy-first data via data mesh
https://web.archive.org/web/20220805183650/https://www.thoughtworks.com/en-de/insights/articles/privacy-first-data-via-data-mesh (trying to be consistent in storing the archived link here.)
I consider this a Public Domain image as the image does not pass the ‘creativity involved’ threshold which generally presupposes a human creator, for copyright to apply (meaning neither AI nor macaques).
I say this, but there's a nuance to consider. I read a post by someone creating their company logo with Dall-E by repeatedly changing and tweaking their prompt to get to a usable output. That is definitely above the creativity threshold, with the AI as a tool, not as the creator. Similarly, NLP AI tools can help authors to get to e.g. a first draft, then shaped, rewritten, changed, edited etc., which crosses the human creativity threshold for copyright to kick in. Compare with how I sometimes use machine translation of my own text and then clean it up, to be able to write faster in e.g. German of French, where the algo is a lever to turn my higher passive language skills into active language use. (Btw comment added to see if that updates my original hypothesis annotations of this article in my Obsidian notes, or if it happens only once when first annotated. The latter would mean forcing annotation and thus break my workflow)
the classic idea of blogging as thinking out loud, but here with others.
Alan pointed to the same notion elsewhere. Blogging should be more about open ended curiosity and holding questionsm than about explaining or sharing ones coherent worldview or current truth about something. This with an eye to the former being a better prompt for conversations. I agree that conversations (distributed ones, taking place over multiple blogs) are a key thing in blogging. I also believe in the 'obligation to explain' as ruk.ca says: if you have figured something out, created something, you have a civic duty to explain it so others may find their way to their solution faster. (this annotation is also meant as a test to see how it ends up in hypothes.is and gets sync'd or not to my notes locally.
Something else that came out of this research is the fact that the length of company’s lives is shrinking at almost one year per year. In 01950, the average company on the Fortune 500 had been around for 61 years. Now it’s 18 years. Companies’ lives are getting shorter.
I recognise the statistic, but the conclusion that companies lives are getting shorter doesn't follow without further evidence. There are def many more companies than before (more population plus increased digitisation and mobilithy = more companies), so the bulk of existing companies is younger than before. Some will be successful enough to be a Fortune 500 faster than before, driving down the average age of companies in that list. It doesn't mean that every company dropping out of the Fortune 500 ceases to exist. It may continue to exist in the exact same way as the longest living companies mentioned elsewhere in the article. In other words, they may be doing what the article is counseling to do, turning this factoid into the opposite of the argument it is now used as. In short: you can't say this unless you have data about the discontinued companies, both 'nowadays' and in previous 2-3 centures.