Darel Rex Finley in 888

Predictive Value

2015.07.22   prev     next

We have an old saying at Apple. It’s: “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.” — Phil Schiller

STEVE Jobs came back to Apple in 1997. Bringing him back was a near-bankruptcy, last-ditch, desperation move. He immediately set about getting Apple away from death’s door, then improving its constitution over time. And it worked: Year after year, for the past eighteen years, Apple’s health steadily advanced, leading to today’s supreme fitness. Sadly, Jobs’s own health did not hold out, and four years ago he stepped down, before dying several weeks later. But he knew for years that his end was approaching, and so put a lot of effort into ensuring that Apple would do well without him. And indeed the past four years have seen only a smooth continuation of Apple’s growth.

Whether by revenue, profits, assets, or accounts, Apple’s last eighteen years look like nothing so much as a simple, exponential rocket launch. Apple currently is setting new definitions of corporate vigor: Last holiday saw the highest quarterly profits of any company, in any business, in any quarter, ever, and Apple looks on track to set the all-time record for annual profits by any company in any business. And while Apple’s stock price has been a wild ride (as stock prices generally are), it is nonetheless roughly fifty times as valuable as it was in ’97.

Coincidentally, 1997 is also the year that Harvard business professor Clayton Christensen rose to fame with his best-selling book, The Innovator’s Dilemma, which launched an eighteen-year career in promoting his “disruption theory.” Christensen’s theory is multi-faceted — perhaps too multi-faceted; see my previous comments on his “drawers” metaphor — and to the extent that its claims can be pinned down, fellow Harvard professor Jill Lepore has written the definitive article about the problems with that. Here, I would like to focus on the could-have-been scenario. How would we view Christensen and his theory if he had taken a different attitude toward what is now the most successful corporation on Earth?

The Pro

Imagine that for the past eighteen years, whenever Christensen had been invited to comment on a new product from Apple, he had said something to the effect that, “I think this product will be enormously successful. I think it will seriously disrupt entrenched companies in its field, even companies that haven’t, up to this point, been thought of as Apple competitors. My theory strongly indicates this.” While a few times he might have been wrong with such a prediction (but only for products like Ping that were quickly forgotten), most of the time he would have been extremely correct.

Also imagine that many times over the ’97-to-’15 stretch, he had said something like, “A few years from now, Apple will be doing substantially better than it’s doing now.”

To which the typical interviewer might incredulously ask, “Really? Because they’re doing unbelievably well now. They’re going to be doing even better in a few years?”

“My theory predicts that they will.”

“A lot of tech analysts are saying that Apple has peaked, that it can’t go any higher, that it can only go down from here.”

“Yep; they’re wrong.”

After eighteen years of statements like that, Christensen today would look like a super genius. I would say he’s a super genius. I would believe it. I might be right.

People would be tripping all over themselves to give their money to Christensen to invest, and to ask what he thinks about anything and everything. Of course, he wouldn’t need any of those people’s money if he had scraped together as much as possible in ’97 and invested it in Apple (plus some ongoing investment in the subsequent years) — today he would be independently wealthy many times over.

The Con

Of course, none of that happened. I’m not aware that Christensen ever invested in Apple (or any other company that did very well), but I understand he makes a reasonably comfortable living from his Harvard salary, book royalties, the lecture circuit, and the like. Until Lepore’s New Yorker article, he got to say what he wanted about business theory pretty much unopposed — as Lepore herself notes:

Most big ideas have loud critics. Not disruption. Disruptive innovation as the explanation for how change happens has been subject to little serious criticism ...

Which is odd, because Christensen has spent the past eighteen years saying things about Apple that are almost the complete opposite of my above-described could-have-been: To take his long-running opinion as gospel, one would have thought that Apple’s products would be flops at worst, or tepid, temporary successes at best, and that any given year of the last eighteen was probably Apple’s lucky-run peak, to be followed swiftly with failure and downfall. Apple’s business model is in trouble; Apple’s market situation is cause for worry; Apple needs our prayers; maybe Apple can figure out a way to survive; is there hope for Apple? Etc.

Despite all that, his reputation held until Lepore’s exposé just a year ago, and even since hasn’t seen any other high-publication criticism.


Christensen has made a writing/teaching career out of his theory of disruptive innovation. In case after case, he shows what happened to some particular companies competing in some particular business, during some particular range of years. And because these descriptions have some obvious similarities, they seem to comprise a coherent theory, with predictive value. They seem to be explaining why the things that happened had to happen that way.

The importance of this predictive value is not lost on Christensen’s main disciple, Medallia’s James Allworth (Exponent #8):

There’s an implicit suggestion in [Lepore’s] article that [Christensen’s theory is] not predictive. I’m not entirely sure that— in fact, that’s probably framing it too gently — I believe disruption is predictive. And it’s predictive because — how is the best way to describe this — it’s predictive because people are predictable. It’s predictive the same way that capitalism is— the way people behave in a capitalist society, by and large, is predictable. You put people inside a large organization with a profit motive, particularly if it’s a successful organization, and there are incentives for them to do certain things.

And those patterns play out time and time again. And that’s why disruption is— I find it such a useful frame, or useful lens to look out into the future because when you see that pattern, and you understand the reason for it, like— and that’s what good theory does: It drives to the reason why something happens. It’s not corellative; it’s causal. It’s like, what causes what to happen and why. When you see the pattern and you understand why, then it’s actually a very useful mechanism to be able to make— to have insight on the future. Whether you’re outside a company looking in, like we are in a lot of instances, or whether you’re a manager inside a company deciding what action to take in the future.

Retrodiction is the activity of showing that a theory could have predicted events that already have occurred, if that theory had been applied before those events occurred. Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma performed several acts of retrodiction, not prediction.

A good theory should be able to retrodict, yes, but it must also be able to predict events that have not yet occurred. This is critical, because successful retrodiction might be based on selective or distortive application of the theory to make it retrodict events that the theory’s practitioner already knows to have happened. But to predict events that have yet to occur (or not occur), the practitioner must rely entirely on the true powers of the theory. For all the Lepore-exposed faults of his numerous retrodictions, we would happily forgive them if the theorizer was making successful predictions. So — besides his eighteen years of Apple goofs, what else has Christensen tried to predict?

A year-and-a-half ago on FaceBook, Christensen looked forward a nice, round five years into the future:

I predicted that 50% of all high school classes will be taught online by 2019. What do you think?

His target year now is just three-and-a-half years away, so we don’t have too terribly long to wait to find out just how laser-accurate this prediction proves to be.

Although Christensen has made this and other long-term predictions that conveniently can’t be verified any time soon (e.g. half of U.S. universities will be bankrupt fifteen years from 2013), he thankfully has graced us with a few attempts to predict the near future — a few months or a few years out. That should be easier, not harder, yet oddly enough, he seems to fall flat on his face when he attempts it. Lepore reminds us of his famous prediction of iPhone failure (which I’ve already talked enough about, last November). She also tells us about his investment venture:

The theory of disruption is meant to be predictive. On March 10, 2000, Christensen launched a $3.8-million Disruptive Growth Fund, which he managed with Neil Eisner, a broker in St. Louis. Christensen drew on his theory to select stocks. Less than a year later, the fund was quietly liquidated: during a stretch of time when the Nasdaq lost fifty per cent of its value, the Disruptive Growth Fund lost sixty-four per cent.

Lepore makes a point of mentioning that the Nasdaq lost 50% of its value, but the DGF lost substantially more than that. The implication is that perhaps it would be unfair to blame Christensen for the majority of his fund’s losses, just the additional portion that went beyond the overall Nasdaq’s collapse.

But then, what if, while the Nasdaq was falling 50%, Christensen’s DGF had lost only 40%? If I was a DGF investor, I would still very much wish I had never heard of Christensen and his DGF, and had instead kept my money in an ordinary savings account. A theory that purports to guide investors had better be able to tell a good investment from a bad one — not a bad investment from a worse one. Couldn’t Christensen have told his would-be partners, “This doesn’t feel like a good time to be playing the tech market. I’m going to delay my DGF for a year or two and see how things look then. Stay in touch.”

As damning as the failure of the DGF is, an even more damning observation is that since he shut it down — fifteen years ago — Christensen apparently has not started a new one. Why not figure out what went wrong with the theory the first time, fix it, then start a new fund based on the newly corrected theory? Skittish investors? So what; invest your own money. Or just pretend-play the market with a fake-but-public account (I’m sure Eisner would be happy to oblige) until you’re confident it’s work­ing?

No word of any new fund in fifteen years means that Christensen knows his theory doesn’t have predictive value. And if it can’t predict anything that would help investors, how can it predict anything that would help companies, or businesspeople? Is his theory good for anything but “explaining” things that have already happened? Understanding the past implies at least some predictive ability of the future. If a seeming explanation of the past imparts no predictive powers for the future, then the explanation is an illusion. It’s a way to make people feel good, to give them a warm fuzzy from seeming to understand why things happened the way they did. This good feeling manifests from the appearance of security: If I understand why the past had to happen the way it did, then I might be able to dodge calamity, and steer toward prosperity, in the future.

Being the Theory

How could a theory seem to explain the past so well, yet perform so badly at seeing even the very near future? Let’s suppose that Christensen didn’t really have a theory at all (or not a correct one). How could he make it appear that he did? A few techniques can be highly effective:

  • cherry picking — Discuss cases that support the theory, while ignoring cases that don’t.

  • distortive interpretation — Misdescribe the cases under study so that they appear to support the theory, when in reality they either don’t support it or actually refute it.

  • flexible explanation — Make the theory so flexible that, if applied correctly, it can be used to “explain” whatever happens.

Much harder to detect than any one of the above three strategies would be a combination of two or even all three of them. If the theory has just enough flexibility, then only a little bit of cherry picking and distortion would be necessary to round out the theory’s apparent compatibility with known events of the past.

Do I think that Christensen is purposely lying to cover up his lack of a theory? Perhaps not. Another possibility is that he really believes his theory, but thinks that some degree of deceit is necessary to promote it, to make it sufficiently convincing. Yet another possibility is that he really has no idea what he’s doing: He genuinely believes that his theory is true, and doesn’t even think he is engaging in any kind of subterfuge to convince others. He himself might be blissfully unaware of the combination of deceptive techniques at work in his own practice.

Lepore’s best-selling book, The Secret History of Wonder Woman, tells the true story of William M. Marston, a Harvard PhD and university professor who, many years before creating Wonder Woman, invented the lie detector (today professionally called the “polygraph”). The detector seemed to perform spectacularly well in his hands, but when others could not corroborate his results, he was discredited and forced out of academia. In subsequent years when reporters and other visitors asked about his lie detector, he said, “You’re looking right at it, or at him.” (chapter 19)

When people asked Marston, “Where’s the lie detector?” he liked to say, “I’m the lie detector!” (chapter 20)

Christensen and his defenders variously described Lepore’s critique of disruption theory as “personal,” “strangely personal,” a “personal attack,” a “very personal attack,” critical in a “mean way,” and containing “meanness.” This despite the fact that her article said nothing of Christensen’s personal history, his relationships, his religion, his personality, his demeanor, his style, or his appearance. It concerned only the very public phenomenon of Christensen’s theory, and the specific claims of that theory. So why the personal reaction?

Simple: When the person is the theory, criticism of the theory feels like criticism of the person. If in fact there’s no real, objectively usable theory, then an attack on the theory is, in a way, an attack on the person. Clay Christensen doesn’t have a business theory. He is the theory.


Update 2015.08.05 — From Jacquie McNish’s & Sean Silcoff’s Losing the Signal — The Untold Story Behind the Extraordinary Rise and Spectacular Fall of BlackBerry (ch. 15):

[In 2010, co-CEO Mike] Lazaradis had a blueprint inspired by Clayton Christensen’s acclaimed 1997 management book, The Innovator’s Dilemma. The Harvard professor argued that for established companies to succeed against disruptive competitors, they had to empower small, cloistered teams. These autonomous groups, unsullied by the parent company’s set ways, would develop disruptive technologies of their own and could eventually subsume other parts of the organization. It was tumultuous but necessary to stay at the forefront of innovation.

I heard that worked really well.


Update 2015.09.15 — MIT study of Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation finds that “the theory is not very explanatory, it’s not very predictive, and it can only be narrowly applied.”


Update 2016.02.14 — “not to mention a correct one” changed to “or not a correct one”

Update 2017.07.04 — Schiller quote added


See also:
The Old-Fashioned Way
Apple Paves the Way For Apple
iPhone 2013 Score Card
Disremembering Microsoft
What Was Christensen Thinking?
Four Analysts
Remember the iPod Killers?
The Innovator’s Victory
Answering the Toughest Question About Disruption Theory
Predictive Value
It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact


prev     next



Hear, hear

prev     next

Best Recent Articles

Method of Implementing A Secure Backdoor In Mobile Devices

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

How I Clip My Cat’s Nails

Seasons By Temperature, Not Solstice

It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact

Features (Regularly Updated)

A Memory of Gateway — news chronology of Apple’s ascendancy to the top of the technology mountain.

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux and Silly iPad Spoilsports — amusing litanies of industry pundits desperately hoping iPhone and iPad will go away and die.

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents — general anger at Apple’s gi-normous success.


My books

Now available on the iBookstore!



Daring Fireball

The Loop



Red Meat

Despair, Inc.

Real Solution #9 (Mambo Mania Mix) over stock nuke tests. (OK, somebody made them rip out the music — try this instead.)

Ernie & Bert In Casino

Great Explanation of Star Wars

Best commercials (IMO) from Superbowl 41, 43, 45, 46, and 47

Kirk & Spock get Closer

American football explained.

TV: Better Call Saul; Homeland; Survivor; The Jinx; Breaking Bad; Inside Amy Schumer

God’s kitchen

Celebrity Death Beeper — news you can use.

Making things for the web.

My vote for best commercial ever. (But this one’s a close second, and I love this one too.)

Recent commercials I admire: KFC, Audi

Best reggae song I’ve discovered in quite a while: Virgin Islands Nice

Pinball Arcade: Unbelievably accurate simulation of classic pinball machines from the late ’70s through the ’90s, with new ones added periodically. Like MAME for pinball — maybe better.

d120 dice: You too (like me) can be the ultimate dice nerd.

WiFi problems? I didn’t know just how bad my WiFi was until I got eero.

Favorite local pad thai: Pho Asian Noodle on Lane Ave. Yes, that place; blame Taco Bell for the amenities. Use the lime, chopsticks, and sriracha. Yummm.

Um, could there something wrong with me if I like this? Or this?

This entire site as a zip file — last updated 2018.02.01

Previous articles

Nothing More Angry Than A Cornered Anti-Apple

Let ’Em Glow

The Ultimate, Simple, Fair Tax

Compassion and Vision

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

The Caveat

Superb Owl


Basic Reproduction Number

iBook Price-Fixing Lawsuit Redux — Apple Won

Delusion Made By Google

Religion Is A Wall

It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact

Michigan Wolverines 2014 Football Season In Review

Sprinkler Shopping

Why There’s No MagSafe On the New Mac­Book

Sundar Pichai Says Devices Will Fade Away

The Question Every Ap­ple Naysayer Must An­swer

Apple’s Move To TSMC Is Fine For Apple, Bad For Samsung

Method of Implementing A Secure Backdoor In Mobile Devices

How I Clip My Cat’s Nails

Die Trying

Merger Hindsight

Human Life Decades

Fire and the Wheel — Not Good Examples of A Broken Patent System

Nobody Wants Public Transportation

Seasons By Temperature, Not Solstice

Ode To Coffee

Starting Over

FaceBook Messenger — Why I Don’t Use It

Happy Birthday, Anton Leeuwenhoek

Standard Deviation De­fined

Not Hypocrisy

Simple Guide To Pro­gress Bar Correctness

A Secure Backdoor Is Feasible

Don’t Blink

Predictive Value

Answering the Toughest Question About Disruption Theory

SSD TRIM Command In A Nutshell

The Enderle Grope

Aha! A New Way To Screw Apple

Champagne, By Any Other Maker

iOS Jailbreaking — A Perhaps-Biased Assessment

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents

Before 2001, After 2001

What A Difference Six Years Doesn’t Make

Stupefying New Year’s Stupidity

The Innovator’s Victory

The Cult of Free

Fitness — The Ultimate Transparency

Millions of Strange Dev­o­tees and Fanatics

Remember the iPod Killers?

Theory As Simulation

Four Analysts

What Was Christensen Thinking?

The Grass Is Always Greener — Viewing An­gle

Is Using Your Own Pat­ent Still Allowed?

The Upside-Down Tech Future

Motive of the Anti-Ap­ple Pundit

Cheating Like A Human

Disremembering Mi­cro­soft

Security-Through-Obscurity Redux — The Best of Both Worlds

iPhone 2013 Score Card

Dominant and Recessive Traits, Demystified

Yes, You Do Have To Be the Best

The United States of Texas

Vertical Disintegration

He’s No Jobs — Fire Him

A Players

McEnroe, Not Borg, Had Class

Conflict Fades Away

Four-Color Theorem A­nal­y­sis — Rules To Limit the Problem

The Unusual Mo­nop­o­list

Reasonable Projection

Five Times What They Paid For It

Bypassable Security Certificates Are Useless

I’d Give My Right Arm To Go To Mars

Free Advice About Apple’s iOS App Store Guidelines

Inciting Violence

One Platform

Understanding IDC’s Tablet Market Share Graph

I Vote Socialist Be­cause...

That Person

Product Naming — Google Is the Other Microsoft

Antecessor Hypotheticum

Apple Paves the Way For Apple

Why — A Poem

App Anger — the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Marco Arment Doesn’t See

Apple’s Graphic Failure

Why Microsoft Copies Apple (and Google)

Coders Code, Bosses Boss

Droidfood For Thought

Investment Is Not A Sure Thing

Exercise is Two Thirds of Everything

Dan “Real Enderle” Ly­ons


Ignoring the iPod touch

Manual Intervention Should Never Make A Computer Faster

Predictions ’13


Zeroth — Why the Century Number Is One More Than the Year Number

Longer Than It Seems

Partners: Believe In Ap­ple

Gun Control: Best Ar­gu­ments

John C. Dvorak — Translation To English

Destructive Youth

Wiens’s Whine

Free Will — The Grand Equivocation

What Windows-vs.-Mac Actually Proved

A Tale of Two Logos

Microsoft’s Three Paths

Amazon Won’t Be A Big Winner In the DOJ’s Price-Fixing Suit

Infinite Sets, Infinite Authority

Strategy Analytics and Long Term Ac­count­a­bil­i­ty

The Third Stage of Computing

Why 1 Isn’t Prime, 2 Is Prime, and 2 Is the Only Even Prime

Readability BS

Lie Detection and Psy­chos



Microsoft’s Dim Pros­pects

Humanity — Just Barely

Hanke-Henry Calendar Won’t Be Adopted

Collatz Conjecture A­nal­y­sis (But No Proof; Sorry)

Rock-Solid iOS App Stability

Microsoft’s Uncreative Character

Microsoft’s Alternate Reality Bubble

Microsoft’s Three Ruts

Society’s Fascination With Mass Murder

PlaysForSure and Wikipedia — Revisionism At Its Finest


Patent Reform?

How Many Licks

Microsoft’s Incredible Run

Voting Socialist

Darwin Saves

The Size of Things In the Universe

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy That Wasn’t


Nobody Was In Love With Windows

Apples To Apples — How Anti-Apple Pundits Shoot Themselves In the Foot

No Holds Barred

Betting Against Hu­man­i­ty

Apple’s Premium Features Are Free

Why So Many Computer Guys Hate Apple

3D TV With No Glasses and No Parallax/Focus Issues

Waves With Particle-Like Properties

Gridlock Is Just Fine

Sex Is A Fantasy

Major Player

Why the iPad Wannabes Will Definitely Flop

Predators and Parasites

Prison Is For Lotto Losers

The False Dichotomy

Wait and See — Windows-vs-Mac Will Repeat Itself

Dishonesty For the Greater Good

Barr Part 2

Enough Information

Zune Is For Apple Haters

Good Open, Bad Open

Beach Bodies — Who’s Really Shallow?

Upgrade? Maybe Not

Eliminating the Im­pos­si­ble

Selfish Desires

Farewell, Pirate Cachet

The Two Risk-Takers

Number of Companies — the Idiocy That Never Dies

Holding On To the Solution

Apple Religion

Long-Term Planning

What You Have To Give Up

The End of Elitism

Good and Evil


How Religion Distorts Science

Laziness and Creativity

Sideloading and the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Snell Doesn’t See

Long-Term Self-De­lu­sion

App Store Success Won’t Translate To Books, Movies, and Shows

Silly iPad Spoilsports

I Disagree

Five Rational Coun­ter­ar­gu­ments

Majority Report

Simply Unjust

Zooman Science

Reaganomics — Like A Diet — Works

Free R&D?

Apple’s On the Right Track

Mountains of Evidence

What We Do

Hope Conquers All

Humans Are Special — Just Not That Special

Life = Survival of the Fittest

Excuse Me, We’re Going To Build On Your Property

No Trademark iWorries


Twisted Excuses

The Fall of Google

Real Painters

The Meaning of Kicking Ass

How To Really Stop Casual Movie Disc Ripping

The Solitary Path of the High-Talent Pro­gram­mer

Fixing, Not Preaching

Why Blackmail Is Still Illegal

Designers Cannot Do Anything Imaginable

Wise Dr. Drew

Rats In A Too-Small Cage

Coming To Reason

Everything Isn’t Moving To the Web

Pragmatics, Not Rights

Grey Zone

Methodologically Dogmatic

The Purpose of Lan­guage

The Punishment Defines the Crime

Two Many Cooks


One Last Splurge

Making Money

What Heaven and Hell Are Really About

America — The Last Suburb


What the Cloud Isn’t For

Diminishing Returns

What You’re Seeing

What My Life Needs To Be

Taking An Early Re­tire­ment

Office Buildings

A, B, C, D, Pointless Relativity

Stephen Meyer and Michael Medved — Where Is ID Going?

If You Didn’t Vote — Complain Away

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux

What Free Will Is Really About

Spectacularly Well

Pointless Wrappers

PTED — The P Is Silent

Out of Sync

Stupid Stickers

Security Through Nor­mal­cy

The Case For Corporate Bonuses

Movie Copyrights Are Forever

Permitted By Whom?

Quantum Cognition and Other Hogwash

The Problem With Message Theory

Bell’s Boring Inequality and the Insanity of the Gaps

Paying the Rent At the 6 Park Avenue A­part­ments

Primary + Reviewer — An Alternative IT Plan For Corporations

Yes Yes Yes


Hey Hey Whine Whine

Microsoft About Microsoft Visual Microsoft Studio Microsoft

Hidden Purple Tiger

Forest Fair Mall and the Second Lamborghini

Intelligent Design — The Straight Dope

Maxwell’s Demon — Three Real-World Ex­am­ples


Entitlement BS



Einstein’s Error — The Confusion of Laws With Their Effects

The Museum Is the Art

Polly Sooth the Air Rage

The Truth

The Darkness

Morality = STDs?

Fulfilling the Moral Du­ty To Disdain



Real Design

The Two Rules of Great Programming


The End of the Nerds

Poverty — Humanity’s Damage Control

Berners-Lee’s Rating System = Google

The Secret Anti-MP3 Trick In “Independent Women” and “You Sang To Me”

ID and the Large Had­ron Collider Scare

Not A Bluff

The Fall of Microsoft

Life Sucks When You’re Not Winning


The Old-Fashioned Way

The Old People Who Pop Into Existence

Theodicy — A Big Stack of Papers

The Designed, Cause-and-Effect Brain


IC Counterarguments

The Capitalist’s Imaginary Line

Education Isn’t Eve­ry­thing

I Don’t Know

Funny iPhone Party-Poopers

Avoiding Conflict At All Costs

Behavior and Free Will, Unconfused

“Reduced To” Ab­sur­dum

Suzie and Bubba Redneck — the Carriers of Intelligence

Everything You Need To Know About Haldane’s Dilemma

Darwin + Hitler = Ba­lo­ney


Designed For Combat

Speed Racer R Us

Bold — Uh-huh

Conscious of Con­scious­ness

Future Perfect

Where Real and Yahoo Went Wrong

The Purpose of Surface

Eradicating Religion Won’t Eradicate War

Documentation Overkill

A Tale of Two Movies

The Changing Face of Sam Adams

Dinesh D’Souza On ID

Why Quintic (and Higher) Polynomials Have No Algebraic Solution

Translation of Paul Graham’s Footnote To Plain English

What Happened To Moore’s Law?

Goldston On ID

The End of Martial Law

The Two Faces of Ev­o­lu­tion

A Fine Rec­om­men­da­tion

Free Will and Population Statistics

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — D’Souza

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — Dennett

The Non-Euclidean Ge­om­e­try That Wasn’t There

Defective Attitude Towards Suburbia

The Twin Deficit Phan­toms

Sleep Sync and Vertical Hold

More FUD In Your Eye

The Myth of Rub­ber­neck­ing

Keeping Intelligent Design Honest

Failure of the Amiga — Not Just Mis­man­age­ment

Maxwell’s Silver Hammer = Be My Honey Do?

End Unsecured Debt

The Digits of Pi Cannot Be Sequentially Generated By A Computer Program

Faster Is Better

Goals Can’t Be Avoided

Propped-Up Products

Ignoring ID Won’t Work

The Crabs and the Bucket

Communism As A Side Effect of the Transition To Capitalism

Google and Wikipedia, Revisited

National Geographic’s Obesity BS


Theodicy Is For Losers

Seattle Redux


Living Well

A Memory of Gateway

Is Apple’s Font Rendering Really Non-Pixel-Aware?

Humans Are Complexity, Not Choice

A Subtle Shift

Moralism — The Emperor’s New Success

Code Is Our Friend

The Edge of Religion

The Dark Side of Pixel-Aware Font Rendering

The Futility of DVD En­cryp­tion

ID Isn’t About Size or Speed

Blood-Curdling Screams

ID Venn Diagram

Rich and Good-Looking? Why Libertarianism Goes Nowhere

FUV — Fear, Uncertainty, and Vista

Malware Isn’t About Total Control

Howard = Second Com­ing?

Doomsday? Or Just Another Sunday

The Real Function of Wikipedia In A Google World

Objective-C Philosophy

Clarity From Cisco

2007 Macworld Keynote Prediction

FUZ — Fear, Uncertainty, and Zune

No Fear — The Most Important Thing About Intelligent Design

How About A Rational Theodicy

Napster and the Subscription Model

Intelligent Design — Introduction

The One Feature I Want To See In Apple’s Safari.