Here, let me rewrite that for you

This from Forbes:

Blockchain is the latest innovation to take over vacation planning. It’s expected to disrupt the industry as much as when Expedia, Airbnb, and Priceline took vacation planning online.

A company is attempting to apply blockchain to the travel industry.  To be successful it needs to outcompete other entrenched rivals such as Expedia, Airbnb, and Priceline in a historically very low margin business. At the time of this writing, blockchain has not been found to be a competitive advantage in any industry outside of blackmarket transactions.

These sentences have no meaning

From Law360 (paywall):

“The data-driven lawyer is the lawyer of the future,” said Josh Becker, Lexis head of legal analytics and chairman of Lex Machina. “This is still very early days and these pioneers are critical. They’re evangelists within their firms and they bring data with them each step of the way.”

To save you the subscription, Law360 (which is owned by the same parent as Lex Machina), says lawyers using data is the future.

Just so you’re aware.  Lawyers have always used data, and those that used it better usually got ahead.  In 2007 you might build a script to download info from the USPTO, and in 2018 you now might pay a subscription fee for someone to do that for you.  This has been going on forever, you’ve only added marketing.

And, from what I’ve seen from Lex Machina (which is now dated by a few years) I’m unimpressed.  At that time, it could tell you an insight such as: only 10% of motions to dismiss have been granted in a certain jurisdiction.  So what?  That’s still a 10% chance.  It’s a shot on goal.

The future for lawyers is competency and intelligence. Let’s make that happen.

AI and Tattoo Identification

Somewhat of an old story raised anew this past month.  The use of AI to identify tattoos and what they mean.  This raises all sorts of serious concerns as pointed out in the article (but take with a grain of salt given the advocacy group behind it).

I just like the idea of this needing to be explained in court as a way to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause.  There are ways to get around that need by just using police officer testimony, but someone is going to go after the algorithm.