RIP Steve Jobs. 

I saw the news in the early hours of yesterday morning (UK time), whilst I was sitting cross-legged on the bedroom floor trying to force conference badges through my (non-Apple) printer without much luck.

It was a rather surreal moment. We all knew he was ill, really ill, and judging by his last appearance, Steve Jobs, was fighting his illness, but it was proving to be a tough battle. Even so, the news was still unexpected and sheds light on the new Apple CEO's sombre performance at the iPhone launch the previous day.

It's very sad, for his family, and for the tech industry in general, but trying to get some perspective is difficult when every news outlet splashing the story across their front page, ticker and broadcasts. Predictably, social media went nuts. 

In this maelstrom of media, trying to get some perspective is tricky, but maybe the impact is similar to the feeling when John Lennon was shot in 1980. I was too young to have realised the impact of that event, but it turns out, I'm not the only one to draw this comparison.

People connected with John Lennon as an artist, with a visceral connection to his work. Can Steve Jobs really be held compared? My answer: yes. If anything, for this generation maybe more so.

His innovation at the cross-roads of technology and design has re-defined an industry. A phone without buttons, probably inconceivable pre-iPhone, is now the de-facto standard. I won't bang on the products as I don't consider myself an Apple fanboy, although others may disagree, especially if I ever did an audit of the products I own. 

Consider the revolutions (good or bad, you decide) - computing, telephony, music, tablets. An impressive legacy that has had massive impacts on both the creation and consumption of media.

There'll be lots written about Jobs...but in everything I really liked the post from Brian Lam, ex-editor of Gizmodo who was both friendly and locked horns with Jobs, when his blog covered a pre-release iPhone, lost by an Apple employee.

And for the inspiring side of Steve Jobs, his Stanford commencement speech:

Each morning I try and blot out the involuntary sauna of the Central Line by feeding my addiction to TED lectures. I love the brilliant speakers and the massive variation in topics. Keeps the old noggin' ticking over.

Amongst the recent videos I watched is a talk from the TED Salon in London by economist Martin Jacques. He covers one of my pet topics: China. Ever since I've been involved in running the Digital Missions at Chinwag, we've been looking at the best way for UK firms to build relationships and business in China.

Examples are very thin on the ground - seriously, I'm still looking for any IP-based business that's actually propsering in China - but there's no doubt that China will become the new economic super-power. To prosper, any country's exporters is going to have to wrap their head around doing business with China.

This video gives some insight into why a complete shift of mindsight is needed, and more importantly, why Westerners need to stop interpreting developments in China with Western analogies. 

From the synopsis:

Speaking at a TED Salon in London, economist Martin Jacques asks: How do we in the West make sense of China and its phenomenal rise? The author of "When China Rules the World," he examines why the West often puzzles over the growing power of the Chinese economy, and offers three building blocks for understanding what China is and will become.

Photo (cc) Sam Michel.

I like a 'to do' list as much as the next person.

I've dabbled with systems like Getting Things Done (anything with a tickler file, must be good, right?) and even managed to make some progress towards Inbox Zero.

Last night, by some quirk of fate I found myself hob-nobbing with the world's leading chefs (as you do) at The World's 50 Best Restaurant 2010 event.

My tally?

A pathetic four of the 50 restaurants listed. I really must buck up my ideas. Still, this is one task list that I'll be delighted to tackle whenever possible. Sadly, my bank manager might feel differently.

And so to the list...

1. Noma, Copenhagen, Denmark
2. El Bulli, Roses, Spain
3. The Fat Duck, Bray, UK
4. El Celler de Can Roca, Girona, Spain
5. Mugaritz, Errenteria Gipuzkoa, Spain
6. Osteria Francescana, Modena, Italy
7. Alinea, Chicago, USA
8. Daniel, New York, USA
9. Arzak, San Sebastian, Spain
10. Per Se, New York, USA
11. Le Chateaubriand, Paris, France
12. La Colombe, Cape Town, South Africa
13. Pierre Gagnaire, Paris, France
14. Hotel de Ville, Crissier, Switzerland
15. Le Bernardin, New York, USA
16. L'Astrance, Paris, France
17. Hof van Cleve, Kruishoutem, Belgium
18. D.O.M, Sao Paulo, Brazil
19. Oud Sluis, EA Sluis, Netherlands
20. Le Calandre, Padova, Italy
21. Steirereck, Wien, Austria
22. Vendome, Gladbach, Germany
23. Chez Dominique, Helskinki, Finland
24. Les Créations de Narisawa, Tokyo, Japan
25. Mathias Dahlgren, Stockholm, Sweden
26. Momofuku Ssam Bar, New York, USA
27. Quay, Sydney, Australia
28. Iggy's, Singapore
29. L'Atelier de Joel Robuchon, Paris, France
30. Schloss Schauenstein, Graubunden, Switzerland
31. Le Quartier Francais, Franschhoek, South Africa
32. The French Laundry, California, USA
33. Martin Berasategui, San Sebastian, Spain
34. Aqua, Wolfsburg, Germany
35. Combal Zero, Rivoli, Italy
36. Dal Pescatore, Milan, Italy
37. De Librije, Zwolle, Netherlands
38. Tetsuya's, Sydney, Australia
39. Jaan par Andre, Singapore
40. Il Canto, Siena, Italy
41. Alain Ducasse au Plaza Athenee, Paris, France
42. Oaxen Skärgårdskrog, Holo, Sweden
43. St John, London, UK
44. La Maison Troisgros, Roanne, France
45. wd~50, New York, USA
46. Biko, Mexico City, Mexico
47. Die Schwarzwaldstube, Baiersbronn im Schwarzwald, Germany
48. Nihonryori RyuGin, Tokyo, Japan
49. Hibiscus, London, UK
50. Eleven Madison Park, New York, USA

Offers of fine dining are seldom refused! Hint, hint.

Picture courtesy of asmythie. Some rights reserved.

Believe everything you read? Ever since reading Ben Goldacre's book, Bad Science, I'm much less trusting of stories using numbers to illustrate a point, especially when prefixed with "scientists say". But just how difficult is finding the real facts behind a story?

The challenge, aside from finding time, is to make sense of whatever facts and figures are being used to illustrate the point, especially if that proof is in an academic paper or a bank's financial results. Brain pain.

So, it was with some trepidation that I decided to try and verify that The Guardian had dropped a clanger in an article in this Saturday's business section. With the background of RBS' first profit since the tax-payer shelled out £20bn to keep the organisation afloat, the article asks how management can justify paying bonuses when the government is still owed. And owed big.

However, the graph (see below) used to illustrate the article didn't quite ring true. Of the two divisions showing a loss, US Retail & Commercial shows a loss of £51bn. Even in a world where we've graduated from bandying around 'billions' instead of 'millions', this seems like a hefty chunk of cash.

If this were correct not only would the red bar in the graph have to extend off the edge of the page, RBS would have posted a £44.7bn loss, which, I'm pretty sure, would be a bigger headline than anything about bonuses.

So, with @bengoldacre in the back of my mind, I decided to see if I could find the original material and double-check the figures. A rummage through the RBS corporate website reveals two documents, the interim results slides and the full version.

The data for the graph (not including the typo) is on page 29 of the 204 page report, not including appendices, if you're interested. It confirms the typo and a mere £51m loss. RBS shareholders can rest a little easier.

What this does confirm is a deep respect for the thankless job facing journalists wanting to do a thorough job. Put this into context against hastily written blog posts and the debate about how to pay for investigative journalism becomes ever more important.

To finish, a choice piece of language from the report on how one type of credit derivative is valued:

Gap risk products are leveraged trades, with the counterparty’s potential loss capped at the amount of the initial principal invested.  Gap risk is the probability that the market will move discontinuously too quickly to exit a portfolio and return the principal to the counterparty without incurring losses, should an unwind event be triggered.  This optionality is embedded within these portfolio structures and is very rarely traded outright in the market.  Gap risk is not observable in the markets and, as such, these structures are deemed to be level 3 instruments.

Ever wondered how we got into this financial crisis in the first place? Dunno about you, but I'm not sure I like the idea of an unwind event, unless it involves a cute cat and a bundle of wool.