1. Are you faster at speaking or typing?
2. Are you faster at reading or listening?

Lots of us now use Siri, Alexa, Bixby, and the like because it is quicker to speak than type. For long-form wordsmithing - it's still probably easier to type-and-edit than it is to speak-then-edit. And the way humans speak is markedly different from how they write.

But the bottleneck has always been that listening to speech is slower than reading text.

The average reading speed is around 238 words per minute. Obviously there are a lot of caveats around the age of the reader, the difficulty of the material, whether one is reading for leisure or work. But it will do as a comparator.

The average speaking speed is around 150 words per minute. Again, that depends on the age of the speaker, urgency of their talk, familiarity with the language, and so on.

Therefore it is faster to read academic papers rather than to listen to academic lectures. Case closed!

Except…

There's a fascinating new paper out - Learning in double time: The effect of lecture video speed on immediate and delayed comprehension.

Here's the quote I found most interesting - with emphasis added:

Collectively, the present experiments indicate that increased video speed (up to 2x) does not negatively impact learning outcomes and watching at faster speeds can be a more efficient use of study time.

Thus, as long as to-be-remembered information can be effectively perceived and encoded, learning outcomes may not be affected by playback speed.

However, previous work has indicated that speech comprehension begins to decline at around 275 words per minute (Foulke & Sticht, 1969; see also Goldhaber, 1970; Pastore & Ritzhaupt, 2015; Vemuri et al., 2004) and the videos in the current study exceeded this threshold when played at 2x speed.

Although the elevated speech rates at 2x speed may initially be less comprehensible to students, researchers have been able to train participants to understand speech at rates up to 475 WPM (Orr et al., 1965).

Therefore, with practice, higher rates of speech may not be completely incomprehensible and since 85% of students reported watching lecture videos at quicker than normal speeds (see Figure 3a), they may be better able to process the material as a result of experience.

I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise to me. I tend to watch my MSc lectures at 1.75x with subtitles - and have been doing the same with podcasts and tutorial videos for years. Looks like I am in the majority.

If the average person speaks at ~150 Words Per Minute, increasing playback speed to 1.5x gives a listening rate of ~225 WPM. That's about the same as reading speed.

Going to 475 WPM means listening at 3x normal speed.

My mate Léonie Watson is blind and has written extensively about the use of text-to-speech technology. Because she listens to a synthetic voice, with predictable and consistent pronunciation, she's able to listen at about 520 WPM! That's 3.5x faster than the speech of a biological human.

I'm not suggesting that you can speed-listen your way through any complicated topic and retain perfect understanding of subject and nuance. But it is becoming clear that synchronous teaching has limitations when it comes to efficiently teaching people. There's no substitute for being able to stop an expert mid-lecture and saying "sorry Prof, I don't get that - could you please help me understand?" But the reality is, most people never stick their hand up in class. So listening to lectures on playback - at double speed - is simply a better "user experience" for the student.

Learning, of course, isn't just listening to people drone on in front of a blackboard. The student still needs to do the exercises, write their essays, consolidate their knowledge, reflect on what they've learned, and so on.

But the ability to "speed" your way through a (well edited and professionally recorded) lecture is something to be welcomed. It gives students more time to spend on their studies with, apparently, no ill effects.

The problem with the English language is that it is full of homophones, or semi-homophones. 15 and 50 sound basically the same. Humans have a hard time distinguishing them. So there's no wonder that voice assistants also have difficulty.

Recently, I've noticed that my wife and I have adopted a very specific accent when talking to our Alexa. Certain constants are emphasised, phonemes are executed with precision, and pauses between words subtly lengthened - all to ensure the artificial "intelligence" can catch our drift.

"Alexa… turn on the downstairs… lights."

A decade ago I noticed that some voice to text services worked better if I spoke with a generic American accent, rather than my delightful British accent. It seems things haven't got much better in the intervening years. Maybe voice communications are just too hard a problem to solve? They require such massive amounts of context and symbolic awareness that computers simply aren't there yet.

So we adapt. We adapt our speech to better fit our tools. Just like American toddlers adopt British accents from watching Peppa Pig, children around the world will grow up learning that you have to speak clearly in order to be understood by humdrum machines.

No human would speak to another human like this, would they?

Somehow, we've internalised the idea that the way computers listen to us is fundamentally different from the way that humans listen to us.

Perhaps this is the answer - we need to adopt a specific mode of speaking. Lest we mistake robots for people.

This was created with Amazon Polly which is free for casual use. I was pretty impressed with the voice quality. Although there are limits to how well you can control the speed and intonation.

While there are a number of accents available, there are only a small number of distinct voices in British English.

Type your text, choose your voice, listen in the browser, then download the audio.

By the end of this tutorial you will be able to:

1. Receive calls to a new phone number, sent via WiFi to your Android handset.
2. Receive calls to your existing phone number, redirected to arrive over WiFi.

Get a SIP account

Sign up for a free SIPGate Basic account. Doesn't cost you anything. You can choose a UK landline number for free as well.

You will get a username, password, and config URl.

Configure your handset

Every Android phone is different. This is how I configured my OnePlus 5T.

Phone > Settings > Call Settings > SIP accounts.

Add the details from SIPgate into your phone.

Once done, activate the "Receive incoming calls" option.

Wait

Patience, grasshopper. Before you can receive calls, SIPgate need to verify you. They'll send you a letter in the post. This letter will have a confirmation code on it. Follow the instructions to activate your account.

The letter also sets your emergency services location which is passed along with any 999 / 112 calls.

Receive a call

Once your account has been activated, use another phone to call your new SIP landline. It should automatically be routed to your Android phone. The CallerID will show up as a number, followed by @sipgate.co.uk. Your dialler should be smart enough to pull the caller info out of your address book.

That's part 1 done! Anyone ringing your landline will get routed to your mobile via SIP. It works on WiFi, 3G, and 4G. Magic!

Routing your existing number

Distributing a new phone number is annoying. And people may not understand that ringing a landline number can be answered by a mobile. So, let's cheat!

This code will forward all calls people make to your mobile number, and redirect them to your SIP number.

**21*DESTINATION_NUMBER#

So, if your landline is 01632 960123, you'd dial this number into your regular phone dialler:

**21*+441632960123#

Anyone who rings your mobile, will be diverted to your SIP instantly. Your SIP will ring your mobile and you can chat normally.

Configuration

I wrote about call forwarding USSD codes back in 2010. Man... I'm old...

To check it has worked, dial *#21# - you should see a confirmation message on screen.

To temporarily disable, #21#

To re-enable, *21#

Cost

Forwarding a call comes out of your mobile plan's minutes. Fine if you have an unlimited call plan, but expensive if not.

If in doubt, check with your mobile network provider.

SIPGate don't charge you for routing your calls.

Firewalls

I didn't need to change anything on my ISP's router to get this to work. It also worked over my mobile data connection.

The WiFi at your employer / cafe / aeroplane may be configured to block WiFi calling.

What's next?

There are a number of things you could do with a SIP connection.

• Route calls based on incoming phone number. Always send your boss to voicemail.
• Custom voicemail greetings. Different messages for friends, family, work.
• Block unknown numbers. A good way to reduce spam, but a pain to update.
• Audio CAPTCHA. If a caller is unknown, ask them to solve a maths puzzle before they can be put through.
• Time of day routing. After 18:00 send all work calls to voicemail.
• Send an HTTP POST every time you receive a phone call.
• Use your imagination!

Right, I'm off to play with the Sipgate.io API to see what fun things I can build.

A scammer rings the mark and asks for her credit card details. If the mark refuses, the scammer tells her to hang up the phone, then dial 999 and ask for "Sergeant Scammer of the Fraud Squad".

The mark does so, and is connected to what they assume is the emergency services. However, because the scammer hasn't hung up at their end, the call is still active. So the mark isn't speaking to 999, but to the scammer.

Pretty devious. Luckily, it can't work on mobile. But it got me thinking - how could you get someone to give you credit card details over the phone? I'm inspired by both Bruce Schneier's "Movie Plot Threat" competitions and Kevin Mitnick's work on Social Engineering.

Trying to think like "the enemy" is a crucial part of understanding how nefarious people can exploit a situation. I think it should be considered the seventh "thinking hat".

The Goal

I want the victim to willingly give me her credit card details. I do not want her to be suspicious or report my activity to the police.

The Strategy

• The victim receives a text on her phone.

• "Your Barclay's credit card (starting 4304) was recently used to buy £2,103.54 worth of goods in China. If you wish to dispute this transaction, please call 0113 496 0123."

• The victim checks her BarclayCard - it does start 4304. Damn! She rings the number.
• "Welcome to the BarclayCard fraud line," says the voice at the other end.
• "To protect your security, please type in your sixteen digit card number," says the automated voice. So that's what the victim does.
• ... after typing in several more details, the victim finally gets through to the scammer.
• At this point, the scammer can attempt to get more information - such as home address - or simply assure the victim that the fraud has been reported.
• "Unfortunately," the fraudster says, "the £2,103.54 will show up on your July statement. But you will see the refund on the August statement."

How It Works

There are a number of factors which go into making this a potentially successful scam.

1. People are quite used to receiving texts from their card issuer.
2. It's quite common to be asked to confirm a suspicious transaction.
3. Credit cards number have a predictable start sequence. That's why credit card receipts often show you only the last few digits. This tricks the victim into thinking that the scammer knowa two crucial pieces of information; the credit card issuer and the credit card number.
4. We're trained not to give details to strangers who ring us up. By contrast, we're expected to give details to people when we ring them!
5. You can't argue or otherwise interrogate an IVR. You either have to give that disembodied voice your details or hang up.
6. Again, we're quite used to typing in our credit card details and then pressing the hash key!
7. If we do get through to a real person, the standard Social Engineering tricks all apply. Only, in this case, not only is the victim worried about the potential fraud, she has also primed herself into thinking she's speaking with her credit card provider.
8. At this point, the scammer knows that they can use the card for a fraudulent purchase and the victim won't report it! It will only be after two statements have been received that the victim will notice that she hasn't been refunded.

Problems

Now, this fraud isn't without issue. The most notable being that you do not know who has a credit card issued by a specific provider. The scammer would either need some third party intelligence that their victims all use HSBC, or they could just go on a phishing expedition. Spam a few thousand numbers and there will bound to be a few which have the card which is being targeted.

How To Do It

Using services like Twilio and Tropo, it's quite easy to create a telephone menu. It can play back a recorded voice, save all the user's keypresses, then pass the call on to the scammer.

They can even handle the automated sending of the text messages, playing back different messages depending on the caller - "Welcome to HSBC", "Welcome to American Express", etc.

Defending Against This Scam

There are three main strategies for defending against this scam - and they all boil down to trust

Don't Trust An Unknown Phone Number

Save your credit card provider's phone number in your address book. That is the only number you should ring. If someone rings you - tell them that you will take their name and call them back on the official number. If you receive a text - call the official number to check it is legitimate.

Don't Trust Partial Information

The first few numbers of your credit card are fairly generic. Trusting someone who guesses your Visa Electron starts with "4197" is like trusting a psychic who says "You were a bit of a handful growing up, especially in your teens." It's such general information as to be worthless.

Don't Trust The Other Person

I sometimes act deviously. When asked to give my address, I'll give an incorrect house number or post code. If the person at the other end doesn't pick up on the mistake, I assume I'm talking to a scammer. Similarly, you don't have to trust interactive menus. You can input incorrect information, and see if it is accepted without complaint - a sure sign of a scam. Or see if it gets you through to a human.

Is This Scam Possible?

One hurdle is targeting enough people who have the "correct" credit card. The scam would work without the credit card info, but may be less effective.

The cost of sending out the texts is also a constraint. Although text bundles are relatively cheap now.

Shutting down the numbers - or tracing them - is perhaps the biggest issue. Buying a disposable pre-pay SIM is virtually anonymous. A landline number is probably fairly easy to trace - assuming the police have the time and staffing levels to investigate such a scam.

And that may be the deciding issue. If someone reports a suspicious text to the police or their credit card provider, how quickly can the number be shut down? If the scammer is sending out hundreds of fraudulent SMS an hour, it would only take a few responses to make the scheme worthwhile.

Disclaimer

Naturally, you should not attempt this. The penalties for credit card fraud a very serious. This is intended as a thought experiment.

If you want people to willingly give up their credit card information - take a look at the morons on Twitter posting photos of their cards!

A couple of questions for you to ponder. There are no right or wrong answers and no prizes, just something to seep into your brain.

Voice If you saw your voice written down, could you place it?

Could you tell yours from someone else’s?

How does your product speak to its customers

Digital Literacy If your boss did a web search for you - what would he find? Would she like what she saw?

If you died in a newsworthy accident - could the news use pictures from your Facebook account?

If Vodafone live searched the Internet for you - what would it try and sell you?

Speed

Are you faster at speaking or typing?

Are you faster at reading or listening?

Search

Have you kept photos from several years ago?

Have you kept emails from several years ago?

Have you kept voicemails from several years ago?

If you don't already have it, I recommend trying out Spinvox to convert your voicemails to text messages.