Perseverance: Life One Step at a Time

     There is a Christmas movie (yes, there are lots of Christmas movies) called “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”. In it, there is one musical scene where a song called “Just Put One Foot in Front of the Other” (and soon you’ll be walking out the door). It isn’t quite an earworm but I find myself singing it to myself when I am faced with something difficult, terrifying, or frustrating. Guess what? It seems to help. In this, I am not alone as many people find inspiration and solace in music.

     Still, this song embodies a true situation. How do we get through the door to inside (or outside)? One foot at a time (or one turn of the wheel on a wheelchair). There may not be much observable progress after that first footstep but it is what gets you to, and through, that doorway.

     Perseverance and Inertia seem to be bookends. As long as you don’t move (physically, spiritually, or any other way) then you are “safe” within where you are used to being. You may tell yourself that you don’t like where you are but, as long as you are not moving, you must be sufficiently comfortable. Once you do take that first step, think that first thought, or agree to that first point of advice then you can progress towards your goal as long as you keep “putting one foot in front of the other”.

     Often, we start feeling impatience. We want to arrive at our destination as quickly as possible — the old “are we there yet?” situation. Not only is it required that we go from the origination to the destination “one step at a time” but is to our advantage to do such. This gives time to enjoy the journey as well as providing “checkpoints” that lets us verify that we are still heading towards our goal — or to give us second thoughts as to whether we still want that original destination.

     But, I primarily start singing the song to myself when I find myself afraid to take that next step. It seems to ease the anxiety by reminding me that it is ONLY the next step. It doesn’t have to be perfect and it doesn’t even have to be in the “right” direction because there will be yet an additional “next step” and I will have a chance to reposition it.

     Do you proceed one step at a time? Do you find yourself reluctant or afraid? Many do, so you are in good company. Remember that all you can do is keep moving — everything else will happen according to many factors, most of which are not even close to being under your control.

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Share

Leadership: What it is and what it isn't

     I’m going to start off with the core of this newsletter. Leaders have goals and leadership is the set of skills and methods that encourage, persuade, and/or entice others to work towards that goal (or goals) together.

     So, what are goals? Goals are anything beyond the status quo — something that has not been achieved before. Goals can be applied to individuals, families, companies, cities, states, and countries. There can be good managers, even great managers, who succeed in maintaining a healthy status quo (a situation where the best possible situation exists for things as they are NOW). They can be admired and appreciated — but they are not leaders.

     Here in the US, the last President that I know of who put a goal into motion was John F. Kennedy — and he was assassinated. He said “we will put a man (no thought of women participating at the time, alas) on the moon by the end of this decade (the 1960s). This goal, which had to be pushed forward by his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, required a joint effort of Congress and the people of the US. And they did it! There were coordinated efforts which boosted the educational system towards the sciences. The process of making the physical elements happen had all sorts of side-effects which affected the country then and beyond. These include (but the list is enormous) solar panels, heart monitors, water purification technologies, lightweight building materials and methods, improved computer capabilities, and search and rescue methods, among many others. They provided a boost to technology which can be followed to everyday technologies such as GPS and smartphones and Internet capabilities.

     The 60s were a good time for trying to put goals into motion. Martin Luther King, Jr had a “dream” — a goal where all people would work together and respect one another no matter their external appearance or beliefs — and he was assassinated. At the time of his death, he was expanding the breadth of his concerns to that of the global community. Mahatma Gandhi had similar dreams two decades before (and, once again, he was assassinated for them).

     Martin Luther King Jr’s dream has not yet been achieved but his efforts, and those of many others working with him and alongside him, have achieved some significant progress. When I was around four years old, according to my mother (I don’t really remember), I brought home a young girl, whose skin color was not the same as ours, to play with. I was told “we don’t play with these people, the neighbors will see and we’ll never hear the end of it”. Later, in the 70s and 80s she took care of children of all external appearances but my mother, though she did have many positive qualities, did not have the courage of MLK Jr and the folks alongside of him.

     In short, among the many improvements has been the reality of people being able to associate with others who are not directly similar to themselves. Being allowed to associate is the first step to accepting others as people — it allows empathy, understanding, acceptance, and growth. But, as said before, it is only part of beginning steps towards the “dream” of MLK Jr — as “allowing” does not mean the same thing as everyone “doing”.

     There have been goals created by business leaders. All of the “new” businesses have been pushed forward by someone with a goal. Some such have already been mentioned — such as GPS and smartphones — but just about every “new” business has been achieved by striving towards a goal.

     Note that word “striving”. We haven’t reached MLK Jr’s “dream” yet. The goal is hopefully a worthy one (there are instances in history where the goal was NOT a worthy one) but the process of getting people to work together and attempting to make that goal happen is still worth the effort and brings many benefits. Even if we had NOT succeeded in putting a man on the moon, what benefits would we still have achieved?

     Was it a coincidence that the two people I mentioned from the 60s (and there are many others globally) were assassinated? Personally, I don’t think so. The reason that there are not more goals set, and worked towards, is because a goal inherently means CHANGE. There aren’t many people that take change calmly. Some may be positively excited but there will be many who will be terrified. For businesses, it is primarily a matter or risk and a likely hit on short-term results. For political and economic systems, any change will affect the profits and livelihoods of corporations and many wealthy individuals. Isaac Newton talked about inertia in terms of physical systems — but the inertia of groups of people can be even more difficult to change. The more people that are affected by a change, the more likely there will be someone who will, under strong negative emotions, do something violent.

     As politicians show us every day, a terrified (or angry) person can be persuaded to do things that they would never even consider if in a calm situation. Scared or angry people can easily be persuaded to do things that are not at all for their long term benefit — “to shoot themselves in the foot”. As Frank Herbert said in the book Dune, “fear is the mind killer”. In addition, there are many people, and corporations, who greatly benefit financially by keeping to the status quo.

     As I said, in my opinion, JFK was the last US President who succeeded in initiating a goal (but would have failed if LBJ had not taken over the initiative). In the US, in my opinion, we have had one other President who tried to be a leader and who initiated some change — but was soon thwarted by others who virulently did NOT want change. Thank goodness, he was not assassinated but might he have been if he had succeeded in initiating the changes he envisioned and that the country so badly needed? We’d have to move over to a parallel universe to find the answer to that.

     In my opinion, we have also had one President who showed that he (once again, that pronoun — but accurate) was a very good manager. He succeeded in having a balanced budget in the US. But that balancing of the budget was not appreciated by those benefitting from a continual increase in spending (or the decrease of taxes in a disproportionate manner). Certainly no one following has succeeded in doing such. It is not likely that it will happen in the near future unless a disaster (such as happened with the Great Depression) forces change. A balanced budget requires reduced spending and/or increased income (for governments, primarily from taxes). Such requires consensus and consensus requires a very good, or better, manager.

     To summarize, leadership is the set of skills and methods needed for a leader to get people to strive for a goal. A goal is something that goes beyond the status quo. Although the status quo can be maintained by a good, or better, manager — such is not leadership or being a leader. Setting a goal, and working towards it, can be frightening, as it means change and those benefitting from the status quo will resist with existing economic constraints providing them support.

     But, in a world that is undergoing constant and accelerating changes, goals are mandatory. And leaders must exist to take us towards those goals. As a caveat, remember that it is also possible to work towards negative, or regressive, goals. Let us, globally, support leaders to take us towards a positive, better, future.

https://charlesksummers.substack.com/p/leadership

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Unfocused: Are you doing what you want to do?

     I continue to be an old-style “classics” cartoon person. In spite of the extreme predictability, I love watching Scooby-Doo. But one aspect calls out to me more and more. If they are trying to protect something, why do they hold it up in the air to be grabbed? If I were to want to protect something I had, I would put it under may shirt and hold on to it with both arms — make it as hard as possible to grab. It’s not just Scooby-Doo, of course.

     Or watch a movie. Someone is driving along and they turn their head and talk to the passenger (or someone in the back seat) for a couple of minutes (even if it were to be ten seconds, it would be way too long). Shoot! They SHOULD be in an accident. If not, it is definite proof of someone, or something, watching out for them. If they do get in an accident one can only say — “of course. Why did they want to behave that way?

     It doesn’t have to be as brazen as looking a different direction while theoretically in control of a 2500 pound cage of metal. It can be walking along on the sidewalk while looking at the little box that society seems to currently mandate we all be manacled to. Crossing streets? Walking on a sidewalk with potential open personhole covers? Approaching an unsafe area of town? Walking onto, or off of, a wharf and into the water? Whoops.

     Once upon a time, in the modern “dark ages”, I was called by a survey person who wanted to know how much I would pay per month to carry a phone around with me to be in constant contact with the world (this was before anyone envisioned a mobile computer as part of that phone). I replied that I was willing to pay $20/month to be without that “privilege”. I could (and did) look into that and see an invasion of work into my everyday life and a disconnection from society and possible privacy. Not that this situation HAS to be — but avoiding it while possessing a “smartphone” requires a much greater degree of self-control than most have (and I will admit to personally taking out my phone at the table, while eating out, to check an incoming message or settle a question on a topic of the table).

     If you ask people to write down a list of things important to them — and the priorities thereof — they will probably be able to do such. But, if you then ask them if they actually follow that list, they may well look “sheepish” — even more so if you start asking for specifics.

     In a novel (or movie), the characters are told that “time is of the essence” and then they spend minutes talking among themselves about things which are not central to the time-restricted thing. Have you ever watched a movie where they had five minutes to disconnect the bomb and then spent 15 minutes of film time doing other things before they disconnected the bomb with seconds to spare? Of course, this is a problem with the continuity monitor on the film but a similar thing happens in real life where focus is lost in time-critical situations.

     If you are supposed to protect something, protect it the best you can. If you have a small amount of time to do something, do it — do other things after the time- critical item. If your focus should be on one task (with penalties involved for not focusing), then focus and isolate other non-critical items. If conversation and social interaction are truly important, don’t let other items get in the way.

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

User Interfaces: When and Who should be designing them and why?

     I am striving to move over from blogs to subscription Substack newsletters. If you have interest in my meanderings please feel free to get a free subscription to the newsletter (go to the end of the newsletter). You will get a copy of each newsletter in your emailbox.

     Get the newsletter.

     As is true of all of us, I get new apps. I sign up for new services via websites. Some interfaces work well. Others make me want to tear out my hair (and I don’t have that much remaining). What is the difference?

     First, I may — eventually — want to fine-tune my interactions with the app/site. I may — eventually — want to go through every exciting and fantastic feature that is available. I do NOT want to have to go through five menus and three submenus to set my address.

     Consider it like a layered cake. On that bottom layer, we have all of the basics. Open a file, save a file, add basic profile information, add a financial source. All of this should be so easy that someone who has never used the interface can do it without having to dig into the interface. Perhaps the app/site can keep track (I know — cookies — love them/hate them) of what is your status. First time user? Experienced user? It may provide a very friendly question/answer interface to let you get started. There may also be video and/or text tutorials to get you past that first level — but NOT for that first level. If you don’t present an easy enough interface to a first-time user for them to get started, go back to GO, do NOT collect $200.

     So, what are those basics? If you wrote the app/website, you don’t really know. For you, everything is obvious and beautiful and why doesn’t everyone just immediately love it for what it is? Ask your grandfather to sit down with the app. Answer questions as they go — but record every question. Observe every “false” movement — why did they do that? Isn’t it obvious that they should have done this other thing — well, no, it apparently isn’t obvious. Obvious for you is not obvious for everyone.

     Back in older days (not quite back to the “once upon a time” days), programs (not even apps/applications at that point) would have a command line interface. (Of course, underlying operating systems usually still do — but most users will never see it.) The goal was to make it easier for more people. Visual user interfaces, and (little “w”) windows were created — but there were usually “escape modes” for experienced users to access the basic commands and their options. These are still often used during scripting for batch (large sets of users for which you want the same set of actions done) situations.

     My Master’s thesis (this WAS in “once upon a time” regions) was for a “Human-oriented User SHell interface (or “HUSH”). It was command line based but you could enter a “?” at any time and it would give help as to what was possible, and what options did, at any point in the command. (Never actually implemented due to bureaucratic reasons.) Did you have to use the help? No. It gave you help only when you wanted it. That made it better for experienced users and the help was good for first, or early, users.

     As is true for many situations, we have a spectrum of users — from first-time users to highly experienced. Each level has different needs and expectations. The basic premise holds, however. Very inexperienced users should NOT need help to do basic things. Experienced, highly advanced, users should not be slowed down in their use with anything that they might know already.

     The interface for highly experience users can be done by the developers. The interface for first-time users should NEVER be designed by the developers.

Fiction versus Non-Fiction: They Don't Require the Same Skills

 

     I am trying to migrate from blogs to Substack newsletters. If these blogs/newsletters are of any interest to you then please sign up for a free (or paid) subscription. The blogs will probably go away at some point. Thank you.

Click here to subscribe at end of newsletter.

    I am a very good technical writer (according to both sales and professional critics). I am trying to expand into the area of fiction — particularly novels. I find that the two have quite separate needs for skills. In fact, they require almost opposing skills (it is certainly possible for an author to be skilled in both sets).

Now, this newsletter is NOT meant to be a discussion of writing skills. There are many good (and great) books on that. Stephen King’s “On Writing” is one of the best in my opinion. Ray Bradbury’s “Zen in the Art of Writing” is another very good one. There are others that specialize in a particular type of writing (screenplays, children’s books, mysteries, etc.) This newsletter does not substitute for any of those. It is an attempt to call out the skills needed for each type of writing.

What is the purpose of a book? In the area of non-fiction, it is to help you to learn about something — to impart knowledge from those who already have it to those who want to learn. In the area of fiction, it is to create a world. This world will have characters (humans, feline, aliens, …) and an environment (physical, emotional, spiritual, … space). And something will happen with those characters in that environment.

I would further divide the realm of non-fiction writing into the areas of technical and explorative non-fiction. In both areas, the writer wants to convey information. In the technical area, a desire for clarity and conciseness is needed. The writer takes a broad area of knowledge and passes it along to the reader in as few words as is needed to give the reader adequate, accurate, information. If you asked a reader to give a book report on the technical book, there would be a rephrasing of the topic of the book but a summary would be difficult as the content is already a summary of the information.

Explorative non-fiction takes a topic and tries to arouse the interest and enthusiasm of the reader. Once upon a time, that might have included made-up dialog and scenarios (especially for biographies). Now, such additions may relegate the book to the fiction shelves. Still, by proper imagery and description, a book about an event in the past can be inspiring (or heartbreaking) to the reader. In this case, a summary would be possible but you would lose the “atmosphere” of the presentation.

On the other branch, fiction takes an idea and expands, expands, expands. It creates new environments, characters, situations, interactions, and “Plots” (which are really “just” interactions between the other elements). A very brief idea can be expanded into a novel or even a series. And — for that infamous book report — it can be condensed back to that original seed of an idea.

Conciseness and clarity versus expansion and imagery. These are very different skill sets. There are also different ways to present fiction. It is possible that those areas of conflict are set up by a problem, or by nature (surviving an earthquake or a crash on Mars) and the book unfolds, piece by piece, as the protagonist solves the problems that she, he, or they, encounters. Many of the early science fiction books (by scientists, and authors, such as Lester Del Rey or Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke) are of this nature.

But, it is also possible for the protagonists to create their own problems. They do this by making errors of judgement, misunderstanding each other, not speaking when they should, or speaking without thought when they shouldn’t, and so forth. If you have ever watched a movie, or read a book, and said to yourself “why didn’t they just do X — then they never would have had all of these problems?” then you have answered your own question. They did “X” so that they would have the problems to solve. This type of book (or movie) is much more prevalent in the marketplace now. I suspect that it is because of shrinking attention spans. It is necessary to have more problems, within a shorter span of time, to solve in order to keep the interest of the reader.

I can write clearly and concisely. I can also present a succession of solutions to problems leading to a desired end. I am not nearly as good at creating the characters, imagery and general world as I would like to do (but I tell myself I am improving). I am horrible at getting the protagonists to do illogical and counterproductive things. This is probably because, as an “engineer”, I am used to working to find solutions and not in creating problems.

So, writing a book requires different types of skills. Contraction or expansion. Clarity or Imagery. Possible to be great at both but, similar to spectrums of intelligence or personality traits, people are likely to be better at one end or another. How do you approach descriptions? Do you expand or contract? Do you have a conclusion in half a dozen words or do you have a chapter’s worth of wallpaper, roses, and carpets giving a world in which to base your ending?

Polls and Surveys: Not often a many-splendored thing

     As mentioned in my 300th blog, this blog is transitioning to a substack newsletter format. If you would like to continue getting my blogs/newsletters, please click here and sign up for a free subscription (if you have money to spare, you are welcome to get a paid subscription). Thank you for reading these. I hope they are of interest, and will continue to be of interest.

     It seems that election season is usually the time for a plethora (so many that a person gets sick of them) of polls. Surveys happen all the time, for many reasons, but polls usually happen for elections. Why? Polls are aimed at the future. What do you want to happen in the future? Do you want a nuclear power station in your town? Do you want to vote for Candidate A or do you want to vote for Candidate B (occasionally the poll will be written such that a choice for “neither” is allowed)?

     A survey is more of a gathering of information about what is happening right now. Do you put on your left sock first or your right sock first (Japan loves surveys of this nature)? How do you feel about the economy? Do you think that your local new pattern of “100-year” storms every four years is caused by climate change? How many pets do you have at home?

     Like weather forecasts, it is often true that polls don’t get it right (surveys don’t also but that’s for a different subset of reasons). In fact, many times polls are used in the opposite manner. They are manipulated to create a desired output, recognizing that there is a “winner effect” where people have a tendency to change their minds in order to be part of the “winning” side.

     Even when a poll is not deliberately manipulated to give a desired output, there are problems.

1. The questions must be created such that there is no inherent bias or assumption

2. The polls must be filled out (or answered) by a representative group of people

3. The people answering must have full anonymity — otherwise they may not give their honest answers.

     It is more difficult than one might think to keep bias or assumptions out of questions. “How often do you beat your spouse?” is rather blatant (though I suspect it has occurred on more than one poll). “How bad do you think the economy is?” has the same inherent assumption (that the economy is bad) as the spousal question but may not be as obvious.

     Many polls are multiple choice. But desired responses do not often align completely with one of the choices. The potential answers often have their own bias and assumption. If none of the answers matches what is wanted as the reply then there is a choice — don’t answer or choose the “closest”. But if your desired answer is the opposite of all of the listed possible answers then no answer is all you can do — and the poll will not reflect your opinion.

     It is very hard to get a representative number of people. For elections, they not only need to represent the variety of people voting in appropriate percentages but they must also be people who are going to vote. Younger generations often do not use phones for audible conversations so a phoned poll will be out-of-balance with leaving out many younger people (hopefully active voters). Although becoming less a problem as the technology continues to be more established, older people may be left out of polls if the polls are done via online methods. So, do both. But then the “middle” group may be over-represented.

     Legal voters don’t necessarily all feel comfortable in thinking about more complex issues in languages other than their home language. But polls (and surveys) cannot be created in ALL potential languages and polls are more unlikely to be answered if there is any struggle to complete them.

     We have many different physical, economic, ethnographic, and other areas of the country. Each has their own history and perspective so all must be represented in the polls. Very difficult.

     Finally, anonymity. In many countries, honest answers can be dangerous if the answers can be attributed to specific people. But even in honest democracies, attributed answers may result in unpleasant results (such as being bombarded with pleas for election money) if the person can be connected with the response. The answer may not be private within the house (or other physical location) and there may be intimidation or pressure to answer in a way not truly desired.

     Surveys can have the same types of problems but, since they deal with current existing issues, can change without causing the “chicken and egg” situations.

     The bottom line is that polls can only be treated as potential approximations. Their results should not be used to guide a person’s actions or expectations. If the poll results reinforce your opinions then be pessimistic and if they are contrary to your opinions then try even harder.

Reality: Is made of perceptions

     There were five blind people who were led to an elephant. One person stood by the ear. Another stood by the trunk. One stood by the leg. Yet another was by the tail. The final one was next to the body of the elephant. What were their perceptions of the elephant?

     How would that change if the blind people moved around? What if one felt the tail and a leg, and another a leg and the body? They would have some overlap but would still perceive a different world for the elephant.

     Let’s let those people loose — let them move all around the elephant. They now should have the same amount to be able to feel. Do they have a complete picture? Well, we know they are blind so they will not know the color. They can only feel the surface, so they do not know what is beneath the surface. Even if they could feel beneath, they cannot necessarily understand what they are feeling or the interactions between the various things that they feel.

     What would happen if someone was deliberately trying to fool, or confuse, them? Perhaps they wrap one leg with scratchy sandpaper and another leg with silk. Would this change their perception of the elephant?

     Once upon time there was a mischievous god. They decided to create some discord. There were two rice fields separated by a ridge upon which people could walk without disturbing the plants. The god put on a big hat — blue on the left side and red on the right side. Walking along the ridge, people in the field on the right side saw a person in a red hat. People in the left rice field saw a person in a blue hat. Reaching the end of the ridge, the god turned around — making sure that his hat turned on his head as he moved. Now the hat had the red side on the left and blue on the right — but, since they were walking the opposite direction the same people in the fields saw the same color on the hat that was seen before.

     At the end of the day, the workers all sat down in the communal dining room and, not having a lot of different things to talk about, they talked about the person who walked along the ridge. One group was certain that they had seen them wearing a red hat. The other was certain that they had seen a blue hat. They argued more and more and starting fighting amongst themselves. And the god laughed to see what had been done.

     Each group was certain that they had seen all of the hat — so they were equally certain that they were correct in what they saw.

     Both the god and the persons who wrapped the elephant’s legs were deliberately changing what was presented to the people — causing them to perceive something that wasn’t part of the real object. This type of deception, or fabrication, can happen — and does happen based out of many reasons.

     Sometimes, like in the stories of this god, or the First Nation stories about Coyote, the reasons are not malicious. Sometimes, such distortion and fabrication are designed to promote a deliberately flawed reality for selfish or vindictive reasons. But, even without such deliberate distortion, our ability to perceive the entirety is limited.

     The ideal end goal for perception is to know everything (and recognize when information encountered is false). This is called omniscience — and no mortal (or AI) can possibly have it. Still, the greater the amount of accurate information that can be gathered, compared, and correlated allows a more complete notion of the reality of a subsystem or global entity.

     Given that omniscience is not possible for a human, there must be a reduction in the amount of information present. The first reduction is via access. If you cannot access information then you cannot process it. Search engines indicate that between one and four million books are published in English each year. I may read 200 books per year (my wife reads more). A very small percentage. At any given time, there is information (much of an entertainment nature) streaming, or being broadcast across hundreds, or thousands, of channels at a time. I can only actively watch one at a time. While there are choices as to what books I read and what channels I actively watch, I know in advance that there are many others that I will never access.

     Some people try to examine the maximum amount of information that they can -- and potentially reach a condition of information overload. This happens when so much information is accessed that there is no longer enough ability to access, compare, or evaluate the information. Trying to do the maximum is not helpful. Determining the optimum — the most that one can access usefully — is individual and often determined only after having done such.

     You have an optimum amount of information to work with. How was that information selected? First is access. Second is sensory gating — reducing the amount of information processed to prevent overload. The third is individual discrimination. This is where individual perception can start creating artificial realities. Such realities are externally inconsistent but may artificially create an internal consistency — a circular type of affirmation. It is done by choosing information based on what you want to be true. To a degree, this is the process of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias only allows additional information that reinforces existing beliefs or knowledge already integrated.

     We all have some degree of confirmation bias. Scientists often have confirmation bias where anything that does not agree with current theorems and hypotheses is tossed out. This is useful to prevent threshing (changing opinions or reactions back and forth quickly) but can also hinder the growth of science. Almost every new technology or discovery has to go through these hurdles — some quickly and some very slowly (with a lot of posthumous acknowledgements).

     Our reality is created from our perceptions. Our perceptions are based on a limited amount of information. A reality is closer to a universal reality (one that all agree upon) when information is broadly obtained and checked, correlated, and analyzed BEFORE being accepted or rejected.

     On a personal level, I try to read as many newsletters and articles from a global community. This helps to reduce national bias. I try to study history so I have some background to help me to understand the material. I listen to discussions created by people who both tend towards my perceptions as well as those that oppose my interpretations. And I still fail to have THE “correct” view of reality because of my limitations.

     But we can try — and that is all we can do. 

    As mentioned in my 300th blog, this blog is transitioning to a substack newsletter format. If you would like to continue getting my blogs/newsletters, please click here and sign up for a free subscription (if you have money to spare, you are welcome to get a paid subscription). Thank you for reading these. I hope they are of interest, and will continue to be of interest.