Murphy's Law: Or why in the world did that have to go wrong?

 

     There is a "law" of the universe (similar to Newton's laws or the Department of Motor Vehicle's laws) that is known as "Murphy's Law" (or Murphy's first law; Murphy was so infamous that it was decided to tack on two additional "laws" to his name). All apologies to anyone named Murphy out there. (Actually, the roots of the adage are uncertain but Murphy gets primary credit in US society.)

     So, why end off the blogs for this year with one concerning "anything that can go wrong, will go wrong"? Some of you may have noticed a period of inactivity for me since mid-November 2021 (most probably didn't notice at all -- oh well). (Do, please, feel free to leave comments or suggestions for future topics.)

     Why end up the year with this topic? Well, I certainly HOPE everyone had a fantastic year. For those who didn't ...........

     Around November 20, the hard disk on my primary computer went bad (SMART tests started failing). Actually, that was only the start of analysis. It took a week to find out why it was failing, another week to decide how to approach the problem (repair or replacement -- I decided on replacement). "Supply chain issues", "chip shortages", etc. etc. It took a while to get the new computer. So, now to just use my backup drive to restore the system onto the new machine! Piece of cake, right?

     Nope. That backup hard disk, which was behaving fine (and happily responding to diagnostic programs) prior to the hard disk collapse, now decided to not mount. Checks were performed. New tools were obtained. File system in great shape. Partition/volume test results erratic -- sometimes they passed, sometimes not. It mounted once -- on a different machine which I was using to perform tests on the hard disk. But I had a technician on the phone and they felt it would be useful to try one more test -- lost that one instance of mounting.

     Then, early this week, I performed an OS upgrade on my new machine. While updating, it took a left turn and had an unexpected crash/reboot. When it came up, the disk was mounted. No known reason -- any more than any reason known why it STOPPED mounting.

     I started the process of restoration. It took a LOONG time. USB-C transfer times as slow as 3 KB/sec at times. But it kept moving (and the data transfer rate fluctuated from 3 KB/sec to as much as 1.3 MB/sec) and, after about 28 hours, my system was restored to almost the same state as it was in on November 20.

     Lessons learned? No, not really. I had done regular backups. How many of you are making backups of your backups? What is the chance of a primary hard disk and the primary backup disk failing at virtually the same time? Before it happened, that chance was awfully small. As always, however, once it had already occurred, that chance was up to 100%. If you are in that small minority who can keep track of such (I am not sure I am) then alternating disks for backups might be wise.

     Could I have continued work using alternative tools (tablet/smartphone/borrowed computers)? Sure, but there are a lot of things in the environment that just were no longer there. It turned out that one of the things about which I was saying "thank goodness" really wasn't true. It turned out that that cloud backup of some vital files actually had different copies of some files that were accessed differently for different user accounts. Any work that I did in the meantime had the danger of being overwritten if/when the restore did succeed. I had just barely decide to "go full speed ahead" when the backup disk decided to mount.

     Other things that fall into Murphy's category. The lower heating element of our oven broke (literally) while cooking Christmas breakfast. In our bathroom, the outlet stopped working, the main circuit breaker had NOT flipped, and the apparently affected switch did not have a GFI reset button -- finally tracked down the outlet that DID have a tripped GFI, with reset button, this week. (Are you aware that a GFI interruption affects ALL of the outlets on the circuit -- not just the specific outlet? You probably are -- I wasn't.)

     In logistics, resource planning, and business procedures there is always an attempt to allow for things going wrong. But just what specifically goes wrong makes a big difference and it is safe to assume that, if you have prepared for 98% of the likely problems, you will eventually get one in that 2% not taken care of. This is why recovery plans are important to have in place -- your prevention methods will not always succeed. This is a given in the world of cybersecurity. "Bad guys" are always going to be searching for newly exploitable vulnerabilities and they will find them. Noticing, stopping, and recovery from will always be needed. (But keep trying to protect, or eliminate, the vulnerabilities anyway.)

The world of work: complex interdependencies

 

     Once upon a time, during a Google interview, I was asked to suggest a potential project in which I would be interested. As Google is so tightly involved with data, I proffered the idea of a world-of-work model. I talked about this issue in another blog about five years ago -- but, as no one has taken up the gauntlet, I will lay it out again. The needs (in my opinion) for such a model continue to become more important with the continued fast-approaching limits for control of climate change.

     Meteorologists have a number of models of weather patterns. These models include time-constrained ocean currents, geographical terrain, and many other factors of which I am personally ignorant. The models do not include (as far as I know) the flapping of a butterfly's wings (see my blog on chaos theory). Use, and refinement, of these models has continued to improve as computational power, and data storage and access, has grown. But there are so many factors and even an accurate model needs a lot of real-time data items (what is the temperature right now above a large parking lot in the middle of Chicago? Is a factory in Illinois currently increasing the humidity of an area by vapor elimination?) to come out with the best results. Not perfect, or even perhaps "good enough", they continue to improve.

     Think of a job -- any job. It will have needs and, presumably, other jobs will have dependencies upon it. Or think of a product -- any product.  Products are made from physical parts and other people, used by various people, and must return to the earth in as gentle of a fashion as possible. This interdependency is the way our economy works. Not the way it is explained, or theorized, but the way it all works together and puts products on the shelf and food on the table.

     What will happen if we change the economy from fossil fuel based to clean power based? What people will be affected? Where are they located? How can effects be minimized -- where should new factories be placed and people retrained to reduce the effect on the local economies?

     (Something that would have been nice to have existed.) What happens if people stop traveling and have to work from their homes? What are the critical needs that must be filled? What portions of the economy will suffer most and what areas will be needed so much more that there is a dire shortage of appropriate people and materials?

     Start with something very familiar to most of us -- a car. A car is made of many parts. Each part has to be manufactured and transported to the factory. The part will be created from various materials which must be manipulated by people and equipment. Materials must be either fabricated and/or mined and refined. All of these steps require energy -- for transportation/fabrication/mining. Each person involved in the factory, parts, transportation, or raw materials has a life which requires food, transportation, clothing, housing, medical needs, communication, entertainment.

     As you can see, the matrix of interdependencies grows exponentially. It is likely that such a model would have to be done via AI methodologies. I would not be surprised if the manufacture, and maintenance, of a single car would involve many thousands of people -- perhaps a million.

     A caveat of a model which includes various attributes such as salary is that one has to take into consideration whether an attribute is independent or interdependent. Most variables are interdependent. The cost of a part depends on current market conditions. An increase in salary will likely directly increase sales in other areas (the more there is to spend at the lower economic levels, the more that is spent). A numerical attribute in a person/part/material node of the model is more likely to be marked down as a formula -- similar to that used within spreadsheets.

     The more I examine the needs of a world-of-work model, or a real-world economic model, the more details and interdependencies I can think of. Does this mean it is impossible? I am of the continued firm belief that if a person can think of something it can eventually be done. That doesn't mean it would be easy.

     But would it be worth it? That, as often is the case, depends on the definition of "worth". I don't see how to marketize such a model but I can certainly see a lot of uses in a world that continually needs to change and a world that is continually changing -- whether or not people want it to. Climate change, pandemics, resource depletion, natural disasters (more and more often associated with climate change), any type of large scale change changes the world-of-work. Wouldn't it be nice to have some way to forecast what would happen with change? Even if it weren't completely accurate, it would give guidance.

     

Fake memes: Why are they created?

 

     I keep considering leaving some social media sites -- too much time spent and too much extraneous material. But then, how would I keep track of birthdays? Also, I spend a lot of my time posting fact checks on fake memes that people pass along without checking. I recognize that people, in general, are not likely to ever start fact checking before passing memes along. But, I don't want these inaccurate memes to continue spreading across the Internet, to possibly thousands of people, without comment. Just maybe, such fact-checks will stop one or more "shares" of a fake meme and slow its cancerous spread.

     So, why are these fake memes created so often? There isn't a single reason, but I believe there are some categories that handle most.

     Note that these categories apply to those who create fake memes. They are aware that they are false -- or that they express things for which there is no proof.

• Immaturity. People take pride in seeing their lies spread across the Internet. They can tell themselves, and friends, "I did that". It is analogous to arson -- setting fires just to see them burn and spread.
  
  
• Hatred. People have hatreds. They may hate people, movements, companies, organizations, religious groups, political parties, people with special attributes, countries, people with blue eyes, whatever. It would be wonderful to have a world without hatreds -- but we haven't reached that point yet. People who hate want others to hate also -- it makes them feel as if their hatred is rational. So, whatever they can say (occasionally true, often false) that can incite hatred in others to legitimize their hatred is "good".
  
  
• Profit. There have been a number of "exposé" articles about people who have websites to churn out fake memes and messages. These sites have "click-through" advertising links that bring them income (sometimes a lot of income -- in the hundreds of thousands of dollars).
  
  Sometimes the income comes from governmental or private organizations. The sites are used to promote the organization's agenda. These sponsored sites often have teams of trolls to spread their misinformation and incite screaming matches rather than constructive discussion.
  
  
• Political. This certainly includes one political party doing the traditional activity of saying bad things (sometimes true, often not) about the other. But it also includes countries with dictatorships who want to consolidate their power by hiding what is really happening within the country.
  
  It includes groups of people hired by governments to foment trouble within other countries. As the saying goes, "United we Stand, Divided we Fall". Alas, there are always governments wanting other governments, and their people, weaker. Domestically, creating an atmosphere of fear and anger is a great tool for groups wanting to manipulate people.

     Fake memes would be no trouble if people recognized them for what they were. They would be humorous -- considered to be irony and satire and part of the genre of literature from MAD magazine to the Onion.

     Alas, many people find the fake memes all too easily incorporated into their beliefs without bothering to see if they are true. And the more fake memes that are incorporated, the wider the boundaries of belief get as the fake memes get farther and farther away from any tentpoles of reality.

     If people want to stop this creation of new realities, then they can choose to do fact checking when they encounter memes, tweets, posts, newsletters, or emails. It is true that doing fact-checking takes more time and effort than just believing, or rejecting, them. Fact checking can also be very, very hard to accept when the facts differ from existing beliefs. Rejection of facts is much more comfortable than a re-evaluation of beliefs.

     If people want to check facts, there are various places (Berkeley's list of fact-checking sites) to help you in your efforts. If you don't trust any of the existing fact-checking sites then you can learn to do your own fact checking. The Poynter Institute for Media Studies offers a number of courses -- some free, others for fairly low fees.

     After checking, there are often more than two possible verdicts -- a spectrum from "you have to be kidding false" to "yes that is completely true".  Some are out of context such that they sound real but really aren't. Some are true in "broad strokes" but have poor numbers and statistics. A person can choose to pass along a verified meme -- perhaps with comments to better explain them. That is of great value. I would hope that the recognition of "I did that" would feel better for a spread of something verified true than from creation of a fake meme.

     Fake memes are far from harmless but they can be dealt with -- with hard work.

Retention: Job Hopping and Employee Loyalty

 

     Currently, many industries are having difficulties in hiring, and retaining, people -- especially at the lower tiers of pay/benefits. But there were problems with retention of people well before the pandemic hit. It is something that has grown out of many factors.

     Over the past 40 years, I have personally interviewed hundreds of people and hired several dozen. When I started interviewing, the resume usually indicated one of two conditions. There were the people just coming out of college with, likely, no experience in the field (and, often, with no non-academic experience at all). Then there were people who were moving from one company to another. Career changes were possible but, in those days, it was not a voluntary choice very often.

     Those people who were changing companies usually had five or more years at the prior company. Ten or more was not unusual. Over the years, this shifted. The new folks out of college have stayed the same -- though there has been greater competition to hire them. But the tenure of experience of the people changing companies has continued to shrink. When I started work, the general expectation was that you were making a commitment to stay for at least three years to "pay back" the company's recruitment and training costs. Now, three years at the prior company is closer to an average amount of time.

     I continue to monitor the work histories of those I have interviewed/hired, and those whom I have considered approaching. The resume of those of today is much different. I have four companies (in 40+ years) on my resume. I just noted the work history of someone recently hired at the C-level for a large corporation and, over a 25 year history, their average tenure at a company was around 18 months (around 16 companies -- though, as I recall, they worked at the same company for more than one sprint). (Note that, if my resume had the same pattern, I would have worked for 27 companies rather than four.)

     Retention can be voluntary/involuntary, encouraged/discouraged, expected/surprising. Having a low retention rate does not inherently indicate problems within a company. Having high retention isn't automatically a good thing depending on how well the people maintain, and grow, their skills.

    But corporate practices do influence retention rates. Sometimes, in anticipation of employees expected to "job hop", a company will create policies that effectively encourage such. Some types of factors involved include:

• Corporate culture. What is the environment? Are most people long-term hires or are they new hires? Do people expect to stay for a while? Note that low retention is a large factor affecting corporate culture because traditions, and expectations, do not have time to solidify (that might be good or bad depending on other factors).
  
  A company that has a lot of "long timers" will encourage retention.
  
  
• Management. Does management support the next lower level(s) of employees? Is management doing THEIR job -- of training, support, career growth, removal of obstacles, working with the employee about non-work situations? The "Peter Principle" is often most visible in a company within management.
  
  Good management provides an environment where people WANT to stay.
  
  
• Rewards & compensation. Does the company maintain competitive salaries and benefits for people? At one company, they were forced (by competition of resources) to pay market rates for new hires. But that did not continue -- each year, the loyal employees were contra-rewarded with salaries that were progressively more and more below market rates. This applied even to the "rock stars" --people rated in the top 5 to 10% of the personnel. Salary isn't everything but knowing that you can increase your salary by 25 to 50% by moving can be very attractive. Knowing that the company is deliberately paying lower than market rate can also be very difficult to compensate for in concern with morale.
  
  Continuous competitive wages and benefits encourage retention.
  
  
• Opportunity for growth. If they are encouraging you to leave while also providing educational/experiential opportunities it can be very confusing. Some companies have said "why should I train them when they will just take that elsewhere?" The more appropriate question is "how can I reward them for continued growth and value?"
  
  Grooming people within the company allows the company the option of using these new skills and discourages job hopping.
  
  
• Criteria for promotion. Related to compensation, I was in a situation where, in order to be promoted, a person needed to have compensation int the correct region for the new pay grade. With deteriorating salary competitiveness as well as promotion requirements, I was once unable to promote a person. Their effective salary kept reducing so quickly that I could not give them enough money to get to that next pay grade. They left.
  
  Accessible internal promotions encourage retention.
  
  
• Other factors of promotion. Many companies have dual (sometimes even three or more) ladders to allow promotion within a skill, and preference, set. But many companies may require a transfer between ladders (from technical to management, for example) to be promoted as manager. And the criteria for promotion is based on the original ladder and not the new ladder. So, a very competent technical person may end up as a much less than competent manager.
  
  Promoting for skills used within the new position encourages retention.
  
  
• Making a difference. In past years, making a difference meant doing well for the company and the company, in its turn, recognized and rewarded you for those efforts in support of the company. Presently, that making a difference may be interpreted much more globally -- how does the work positively affect the world outside of the company area?
  
  Pride and satisfaction encourage retention.

     Of course, it the company does NOT want to encourage retention, just do the opposite of what is listed above.

     Once again, retention rates do not indicate a single specific situation. But most would agree that acquisition, training, and incorporation into a company are a significant factor in overall cost and productivity. Encouragement of factors that lead to retention of productive employees should be of benefit to most companies.

Profits and Ethics: Partners in Success

 

     I am going to start this blog with something I know is not true -- but, since I WANT it to be true, I will make it my postulate.

All companies want to do GOOD in hand with doing WELL.

     Doing good makes a positive impact on the community, society, the environment, and every aspect of life you can think of. Doing well involves making the company a commercial success.

     The way our economic systems are structured, it is easy for a company to turn away from the path of trying to do good in order to do what appears to be the most profitable process. The "bottom line" is the result of adding all kinds of numbers and projections together, subtracting costs, adding income, getting interest from positive cash flow, etc.

     In such a situation, it is easy to say "if I increase my costs, I will decrease my profits". Increase the number in the spreadsheet and it will give you the number you are expecting. So, doesn't that prove that your surmise is correct? Yes -- but only if all the numbers are completely independent of each other. There are usually dependencies among the numbers but they aren't always easy to recognize and companies (and their boards, owners, and stockholders) want stability and projections that they can rely on. Possible, but unproven, dependencies are not given enough weight to override that change of number in the spreadsheet.

     Let's take a number that is in every company's spreadsheet -- salaries. Increase salaries, decrease profits. That's what the numbers say -- once again, assuming independence between the numbers in the spreadsheet.

     The search, for the lowest salaries to be paid, leads to many things. How do you succeed in paying people less? Outsource to other locations that have lower wages. Pay just enough that there are enough desperate people willing to work for the wage. Eliminate safety measures, increase working hours without additional pay, intensify the working hours so the body and/or mind is always working at peak output and left drained and exhausted at the end of the day (crippling their ability to positively interact in any family unit). Lots of ways to wring the sponge.

     Lower wages equals greater profits -- that's what the spreadsheet says.

     But does that mean that higher wages equals fewer profits? You might assume so but here come the interdependencies. How much does attrition and turnover cost? Nothing directly -- but REPLACEMENT of those resources cost something. It costs a lot of something. Lower wages will lead to higher attrition and turnover (not that wages are the only criterion for such events). So, when you decrease that number in your spreadsheet, be sure that you increase the numbers for recruiting and training, and decrease the factors involved with productivity. And the more you decrease the salary number the more the other numbers have to change. A 30% attrition rate will cost more than twice that of a 15% attrition rate because you are not only increasing recruiting/training but constant turnover is a terrible thing for productivity.

     Productivity is related to more than salaries, of course. There are many factors and I won't even attempt to capture a majority of them within this blog. The takeaway is that productivity is a huge factor in profitability of a company and that concentrating on only one number independent of other factors is likely to be a very large mistake.

     Increased salary not only has an effect on productivity numbers but it also is a contribution to sales numbers. The more people who have money to spend on products, the more money enters the economic system so they can buy your products. Ignoring the distribution of people who have how much money -- the greater the number of people who can afford to purchase your product, the more you can sell. "Trickle up" is a real thing.

     Beyond that salary number, there are many other factors that involve treatment of employees, communities, and surrounding world. Some of those "soft" factors include equal treatment, positive purpose, comfortable work environment. good communication, and so forth.

     Profitable businesses recognize that racism, sexism, genderism, Xisms, and anti-Xisms all are counter-productive and hurt profitability. That can be shown easily within the spreadsheet based on productivity and sales. You don't want to turn away potential customers and, since creativity and abilities are well distributed within all of humanity, isms within the company will decrease the ability to produce and to compete.

     Closely related to "isms", harassment also decreases productivity and morale. Different from the "isms", harassment can, and does, occur within various groups and not "just" between groups. Positive treatment -- encouragement, acknowledgement, elimination of obstacles lead to improvement both within the individuals involved but also morale, productivity, and positive interactions with the customer base.

     The bottom line of this blog is that numbers within a spreadsheet are not independent. Doing the "right thing" can increase productivity, morale, positive interactions with the customer base -- which in turn leads to greater profits and dividends.

What's in a Number? : Quantitative versus qualitative

 

     We like absolutes. If a person is above age B then they are mature enough to vote, or to buy and drink alcohol or whatever. If they are below age B, then they are NOT mature enough to vote, or whatever.

     People know this isn't true. Such characteristics -- maturity, life lessons, family background have some correlation to age. An older individual will hopefully be more mature, and have more experience, that that SAME individual was at an earlier age. But comparing individual X at age B to individual Y at age B is entering the "apples to oranges" type of situation. Each person will develop at different rates depending on experiences, home environment, environmental (if you are growing up in a war zone you will certainly develop more quickly in certain ways -- or you will be on the casualty list). And development occurs in different aspects at different rates. One person may develop physically very quickly while their social maturity is very slow to develop. And another person may do the opposite -- they may have the physical aspects of someone small and weak but have considerable social abilities and maturity.

     Another number in great use is the Body Mass Index (BMI). Yet, it is generally acknowledged by health professionals, that the number (or number range) is only accurate for about 80% of the people. A BMI is calculated by the formula of weight divided by height squared -- or kg/m(squared). But not all weight is equal. A bodybuilder with lots of muscle will weigh more -- be more dense -- at equal size. A bodybuilder, or athlete with a lot of muscle, will have a higher BMI. The same is true for people with "big bones" (used a lot as an excuse but still can be true and depending on genetic heritage). The BMI calculation calls upon a certain composition of the body -- so much muscle, so much fat, so much bone. If any of these are not in the "expected" range, the BMI number will differ and not easily able to be used for any charts or evaluations.

     So, if people know it isn't true, why do we use these numbers? They are simple. Some people in the world don't know their precise birthdate but most people (especially in areas of the world where they have heard of, and use, BMI) know what their chronological age is. They have access to a scale to weigh themselves and a ruler to measure their height. It is simple -- and simple means fast and easy.

     Could it be done more accurately? Sure. For aspects associated with age, a team (I would never recommend just ONE evaluation) can evaluate various development criteria. A person may come out of such an evaluation with a range of "ages" -- some higher than their chronological age and other aspects lower than their chronological age. Which is cheaper and faster -- a battery of tests by experienced professionals -- or looking at a calendar? Not hard to guess, is it?

     The BMI is an attempt to give a fast and easy determination of body fat composition. But there are other ways to determine that much better than the BMI formula. One method is called a displacement test. Put someone into a tub of water and measure how much the water rises on the edges of the container. Calculate the volume displaced which is the volume of the person. Then use this volume along with the weight to determine density. Density can then be used to determine composition. A person with high body fat will have lower density. A person with "big bones" or a lot of muscles will have higher density. There are other types of tests which vary in accuracy depending on the experience and ability of the tester -- body calipers and so forth. The end aspect is that all they require extra time and extra experience and training. Some are less convenient and require special equipment. But they are much more accurate. Which is cheaper and faster?

     This would be a great big "who cares" if it wasn't for the fact that these numbers are integrated into laws, and insurance actuary tables, and health advisory brochures, and so forth. The numbers can still be useful -- but ONLY if their limitations are recognized and acknowledged. A bodybuilder that is given higher insurance premiums based on being "too fat" according to their BMI should be given the option of paying for a more accurate test (probably saving themselves a lot over the term of the insurance policy).

      And, when you read a news article, it is useful and much more fair to recognize the limitations of numbers. That person of "mature" age may truly be more fairly evaluated as a child. Everyone is different but it is easier to categorize them according to the numbers.

     Do you know other numbers that do not always work well but are used because they are easier?

The macro and the micro; boundaries of possibilities

 

     There is a well-known meandering about "see this piece of dust, what if it were a world for very small people living inside it ... and what if we are that piece of dust to some place so vast we cannot comprehend it." The Ant-Man movies kind of echo this type of suggested microworlds though not the macroworlds (not yet, at least). (For that matter, Dr. Seuss' "whoville" is in the same category.) 

     Is such a microworld really possible? Not from the science that we accept at present. We have experimental evidence in support of a hierarchy of matter and energy. From a wooden table to a quark, from matter via relativity to energy and back.

     But the nature of science is to create multiple questions every time we decide upon a tentative answer (all are susceptible to replacement, or enhancement, upon new discoveries). As Arthur C. Clarke said in his "third law" -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". This can be inverted to indicate that "what appears to be magic, may be explained at some future time by use of technology advanced beyond the current status".

     The word "magic" bothers some people -- so it is fine, as far as I am concerned, to call it "future science" but that would be cumbersome, so I will continue to call it magic.

     If one considers the things around us, how many would have been considered magic 500 years ago? Sure, one thinks of computers and smartphones but even a sewing machine would have aroused amazement (hopefully not burning at the stake). Washing machines, microwaves, refrigerators, electric bulbs, asphalt, and so on and so on.

     Arthur C. Clarke also has a less famous "first law" which indicates "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong".

     Turning around and facing the future, the only thing that I can be certain of is that it will be different. Hopefully better for more people -- but definitely different. Assuming that the Jenga stack of technological society survives and continues, imagination is literally our only limit.

     I am most fascinated at the "hows". How does the mind really work? Just how do microbacterial colonies within our digestive system adjust our bodies, our moods, even how long we live? In structured medical studies, the "placebo" (perhaps sugar water or tablets) group often still improves -- how? Science recognizes a relationship between matter and energy. Is there a relationship between mind and how matter and energy are perceived (and, perhaps, manipulated)?

     During periods of introspection (I don't allow myself to linger long as I have to live in the world that most recognize), I will think of that table and break it down to molecules and bonds and then down to atoms and particles and I get lost in amazement that my hand is able to hold a baseball. How does all this interact to make it possible? How is one set of organized atoms and particles able to interact with another set of organized atoms and particles? Most of it is "empty" space. How does one grouping act as a solid -- and interact with other solids?

     I'm not a physicist and have only somewhat more knowledge about it than most educated laypeople. I am sure that, on a mathematical basis with formulas and theorems, there are approaches to answers to these questions -- possibly involving valences and the way bonding energies interact. But, for my "money", all of this is still in the region of magic. It is something that happens every day and few think twice about it but it still ends up in that area of magic (or "future science").

    To quote Buzz Lightyear -- "to infinity and beyond".

Plots: The high and low points of life

 

     Have you ever picked up a book about a favorite character and said "what a lot of things that happened to this person!"? Maybe you have watched a movie and said to yourself "if they had only done this one (probably very reasonable) thing then the next hour of activity would never have happened"? Or the "if they had only used 'common sense' the story would not have occurred"?

     The reality is that most people live ordinary lives -- lives where many things happen to make one day progress to the next -- where it might be possible to use a rubber stamp in a journal rather than having to jot down the whole day. But people typically do NOT write down everyday happenings. They note "special" occasions -- a wedding, a vacation, a birth, a first step (lots of first steps happen all the time -- but it can still be a miraculous first step for each individual), etc. In fact, people write down such ordinary days so seldom (or, if they do, don't keep them around) that it is a real find for an archeologist to recover such.

     What was a "typical" day for a serf in thirteenth-century France? What did a queen do throughout the day in 17th century Netherlands? What did a person of the Iroquois nation do on a winter day? Life may seem boring, and habitual, to the person living it at the time but armchair adventures can be exciting to someone reading about the everyday happenings of a different culture, place, or time.

     In history, we normally learn about (often from only one point of view) big, "important", events -- and they are important. They are also only a very small slice of what has actually gone on with the various billions of people who live, and have lived, on the planet. If we ever invented a "time machine" (for many reasons, likely a very bad idea), the person would probably want to be able to speed up through sleeping periods, restroom breaks, and most of the events of each day.

     And so it is with books, stories, and movies (and podcasts and other media). I would never want to be within 100 yards of some of the detectives (amateur or professional) that I read about. The odds of something happening to me would increase tremendously. Yet, I continue to read them (invoking the "suspension of disbelief" often needed while reading fiction) because I know that it MIGHT have happened to SOMEBODY at some time. It may be incredible but it isn't truly unbelievable (even though, originally, those words meant about the same thing). "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" -- Arthur Conan Doyle narrating as Sherlock Holmes.

     Or take a "soap opera" -- or daytime serial. Having all the things occurring to a particular person, or family, as it occurs in constant procession is so unlikely statistically that it would be much better to buy a dozen lottery tickets. "Reality" programs on television may portray potentially real activities, events, and achievements -- but they're rarely (if ever) packaged up so nicely in someone's daily life. The movie "The Truman Show" lets the viewer take part in the every day of someone -- but I'll bet they arranged a number of events per day to allow a little adrenaline to flow.

     A book about the life of someone who lived in Roman times might be of interest to people. A book about the life of "Joe Neighbor" who lived an ordinary life and wasn't noted for much would have a very difficult time finding readers. This is why books are about things that happen rather than things that just occur. There needs to be a plot to make it different from all of the things that happen all the time.

     Does this apply to personal life also -- not just "recorded life"? I think so. Although there are certainly cultural differences that make a huge difference in approach. Japanese "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down" versus the US "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". A person who gets noticed will be thought about. In one culture, the positive attention will be associated with being a team player who can consistently be relied upon -- while in the other the positive attention may come from being outspoken with individual contributions.

     Unfortunately, just like in a novel, a person will get noticed for negative actions also. If you strive to be noticed for positive actions then not only will you be thought of but those who work with you will want to continue to work with you.

     In meetings, affirm and attribute contributions -- add to others' comments but make sure they get primary credit. Just doing what you should be doing will fall into the same "plotless" situation as an everyday journal. But people being aware of consistent reliability and responsibility is good. Listen well before speaking.

     Be assertive but stay away from aggression (many have great difficulty understanding the difference between the two). Both will get you attention, but your peers will appreciate assertiveness much more than aggression. Once again, attitudes towards groups will affect the way people are perceived. A member of one group may be perceived as aggressive while the very same behavior of someone in another group may be perceived as assertive. Life is messy.

Remote/Hybrid working: skills aren't new but they need to be refined

 

     One of my sons just unsuccessfully completed a year at college which shifted their curriculum from in-person to online. (They shifted ALL responsibility for success to the student -- difficult for any student but, for our student on the autistic spectrum, it was a disaster.) Another son (different college) did OK -- but hit snags (how do you do an astronomy lab course from home?). Our third younger son repeated a course FOUR times because the department was so concerned about potential cheating that they decided that teaching and learning was unimportant. (How can anyone learn if they are not told what they have gotten right or wrong?)

     The above three personal examples (all real -- not theoretical examples) directly pertain to the problems associated with a transition to remote/hybrid jobs. The first is associated with proactive versus passive communication. The second indicates that remote/hybrid work may require additional equipment/infrastructure. The third is an example of how fear of the employee not doing their job properly can actually sabotage the work.

     While I do not consider myself an "expert" in any area, I have had 24 years of experience working and managing remote work. Three years were as a remote employee, 20 years were as a remote executive (VP of Engineering) working within an all-remote (telecommuting) company, and one year as a manager during enforced remote work during this pandemic. My experiences may be of benefit to others.

     Remote work does not require any different skills than that of in-person work. It does require different application of those skills. It also may require duplication/enhancement of infrastructure to allow in-office work to be done remotely. The primary reorientation of skills is that tasks that used to be passively collaborative must shift to proactively collaborative AND self-determined.

     What would be an example of passive collaboration? The "water cooler" is a great example. Off-task casual exchange of information sometimes leads to great ideas as well as getting "unstuck" from problems that may be happening within the group or for an individual. Another is "walking the aisles" -- poking a nose (managers or fellow peers) in to cubicles to see what is happening, how things are going, and discuss any obstacles that need to be overcome.

     All of the passive collaboration needs to be shifted to proactive collaboration. This is useful in an in-office environment also -- people were just able to "get away with" not doing it when they encountered each other face-to-face on a regular basis. While not a new skill, not everyone is good at it as it requires active participation from both sides. One side has to check, the other side has to ask and be able to receive. All can be learned -- but it's a lot easier to describe it than to do it.

     I call out three areas that need to be refined/improved. (I make no claims that this list is exhaustive.) As I said earlier, all of these skills are very useful in a "regular" work environment -- they become a necessity when working remotely (hybrid, of course, is a mixture of remote and in-office so I am concentrating on remote needs). These are:

1. Communication: As mentioned above, you cannot get away with passive communication. If you want to know something, you have to ask. If you need something, you have to ask. Regular, prescheduled, checkin points are important -- but keep them short and only as needed. Three 20 minute remote sessions are more effective than one hour-long session. Stay focused.
   
   Include informal sessions. "Water cooler" talk. Some may be managed team members only. Others may include managers and above.
   
   Feedback. No surprises. Minimum of quarterly, short, feedback sessions on how the team member is perceived and possible discussion thereof.
   
   
2. Requirements/specifications:
   Clearly agree on -- have a written version -- expectations. How will the team member be evaluated?
   
   For projects/assignments:
   Agree on acceptance criteria. In the case of Agile/SCRUM, this is per User Story.
   
   
3. Checkpoints:
   Trust will make or break a remote arrangement. But, until points 1 and 2 are agreed upon and everyone is following through as agreed, it is very useful to have checkpoints. (Once again, an Agile environment will have this built-in.)
   
   Experience includes overall work experience and experience working remotely. The less experience, the smaller the granularity of checkpoints needed. Perhaps agreed upon checkpoints (defined as demonstrable progress towards goal) every two weeks for someone with very little experience. Perhaps at the 1/3, 2/3, and final point for someone with moderate experience. Very experienced people may need no checkpoints.

     The process of working remote -- or managing remotely can cause anxiety. I won't say that anxiety, or any reaction, is unreasonable. All feelings are legitimate. You feel the way you feel.

     This blog only addresses work aspects. Working remote has personal aspects that must be addressed -- but there is no "one size fits all" situation and I am not trying to address them here. These needs are real. Communication is key both between workers and within the in-office and remote environment.

     The needs are not new. You have the same end goals. You have the same processes. You have the same needs for training and communication. The differences are primarily that of perspective, practice, and implementation.

Book Reports & Business plans: Decomposition, fewer words, Creation, more words

 

     I am in the process of writing a book. Not my first book but each book is different and the requirements and orientations are different.

     Once upon a time, back in the dark ages when I was in public school, one of the regular assignments by English teachers (probably true for teachers all over the world in whatever language they write in) was to read a book and do a "book report". (I believe they still make this assignment.) This book report was to be two parts -- one part a summary of the book and the second part a reaction and interpretation of the book.  Book reports were not usually assigned until a person had progressed to "books without pictures" (sometimes teachers would get very stringent about this and not allow a book that just had occasional illustrations). As the reports were often expected to be 1000 words (longer as one got older), this would mean reducing a book which might be (once again, usually longer as one got older) 40,000 words for a middle-grade book to 70,000 to 200,000 words down to 1,000 words.

     How do you summarize a 200,000 (or more) word novel into 1,000 words? First, you have to recognize the climax. What was that end result that all the early parts were leading you towards? (Non-fiction books are not easily summarized because the details are, hopefully, the parts that you want to remember -- getting rid of them defeats the purpose.) Next, note the most important characters -- just the characters that are important in moving to that climax. Finally, what are the important events that lead toward the climax. There will be subplots and side events and environment and all kinds of things that don't directly lead to the climax. It takes a lot of discernment and work to cut it down to 1,000 words. And learning that ability to discern and reduce is why the lesson is assigned.

     A "condensed book" (or severely abridged book) must contain the summary but also keeps scenes (perhaps modified) associated with the relevant important events that convey character development and environment. Some new authors (longer published authors have more control -- sometimes not to their benefit) end up with condensed books after their editors have finished with them. The advantages of a condensed book is that it conveys the general ideas of the book but can be read in a much shorter period of time.

     The third category of reduction is an analysis -- such as provided by Cliffs Notes® -- which provides a summary enhanced by analysis of what is going on within sections of the book and why. The existence of these is sometimes a bane for English teachers who are trying to get students to learn the skills of discernment, reduction, and analysis (the analysis portion is that other part of the "book report" beyond the summary). But they are available to teachers also and direct plagiarism is relatively easy to spot (so don't do it for assignments).

     But what about the "other direction"? The author-to-be has latched onto an idea from the magic idea cabinet and wants to create a 200,000 word work of art that will be cherished for the ages. Different authors approach this in different ways. I treat it as a reversal of a reduction. I determine the climax and then decide on what events could reasonably lead to that climax and the characters involved. Then (difficult for me -- some authors have other difficult areas) I need to take that summary and put all of the personality development, environmental interactions, humor, personal interactions and details needed to make it an interesting, page turning, newly written classic.

     Of course, it isn't that simple (although, with some authors' output, it appears to the reader that it must just flow out of their fingers without any conscious effort). I'm far from that point (I hope to be there someday) but the art of writing is somewhat analogous to other arts -- music, painting, sculpture. As you practice the skills, the brain establishes them as additional extensions of the mind and body. What used to be a conscious process becomes a subconscious flow. An immersion of the mind into the world being described allows a conduit from that world to the transcription of print, music, sculpture, video and so forth.

     A business plan has many parallel tasks to that of creating a book. The plan has a climax (a marketable product). In order to reach that climax (product), a series of events must take place (design, creation, marketing, sales,...). And it will require a set of characters (or personnel) with different attributes (skills/functional departments). Alas, unlike a book, you cannot write in all of the surrounding details -- those surrounding details are the obstacles to your achieving that climax. Murphy has a lot of input into those surrounding details but, within that business plan, the more details and possibilities that are considered will make the plan better. And how to deal with potential problems may be more important than the unhindered steps to the product.

Luck: factors not under our control

 

     Luck. "I make my own luck". "There is no such thing as luck". "Luck seems to always happen to other people".

     Luck is, in my opinion, the label of those factors not obviously under our control. Hitting a stop light, delaying our arrival, keeps us from being in a serious traffic situation. We need a carton of milk and, while at the store, we meet the person of our dreams. We are looking for a job, have prepared our "elevator speech", and find ourselves literally in an elevator with the head of a company for which we would like to work. Fill in with your own favorite anecdote.

     If luck is truly not under our control, there is a temptation towards nihilism. "Nothing I do matters." "It is all a matter of luck." "She/he has all the luck."

     But, notice that I said not obviously under our control. If we did not have our "elevator speech" prepared for that encounter then the lucky event would turn into an unlucky event. If, during our trip to the store, we focus solely on the milk and don't look at, or talk to, anyone else then the "person of your dreams" and you may pass each other and never have the opportunity to meet again.

     Events not under our control will always exist -- there will always be a factor of luck present. But preparation can reduce the significance of the factor of luck. Whether you call those factors "perspiration", "preparation", "hard work", "tenacity", "toil", or "cause and effect" -- the amount that luck, or events outside our control, affect the paths of our lives can be minimized.

     Some  areas of preparation are "obvious". If you want a better chance to pass a test, study, study, study. If you want to do well giving a speech, rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.

     Reducing the factor of luck in meeting people requires you to be present physically, mentally, and emotionally. That's easier for extroverts but introverts can still be true to themselves and learn how to be present for the times needed before retreating to recharge. But there can be multiple areas that need attention. You must be present -- but you also can benefit from being present in a more optimal environment. Your living room is not such a place.

     The best place will be somewhere your natural inclinations and abilities best shine -- where you can be the best you that is possible -- and a place that has people that will appreciate you and people you will appreciate. If you don't like to read, don't hang out in a bookstore or the library. If you don't like to drink, don't try meeting someone in a bar. If you don't like to exercise, don't expect to meet that person in a gym. Be places where you want to be. Other people, of like interest, will also be there and they will be glad to meet you.

     Preparation for possible outcomes in situations can help in multiple ways. Cars don't have flat tires nearly as often in current times but allowing extra time for traffic or mechanical problems is making allowance for factors out of control. If you visualize multiple audiences and multiple reactions when preparing for a speech, it is possible you will prepare for one of the outcomes that happen. But, even if something else happens (which is not unlikely), the preparation will allow you to be better able to adapt to the change in circumstances.  Preparation helps flexibility.

     We cannot eliminate the factor of luck but we can greatly reduce its potential impact.

What is a Technoglot?

I am a geek, a dweeb, and a nerd. On the other hand, I have lived almost 50 years in the land of the "normal" and I have survived and have even thrived at times. I also started off with a love of languages -- studying French in high school, continuing with German and Russian in college or after, and working on Farsi and Spanish nowadays. In high school and college, I learned the basics (or more) of about 14 computer languages from assembler to JCL to COBOL to FORTRAN to LISP to C. I have also been involved with music (violin and voice), art (lithography and drawing), and "crafts" (which can also attain the level of art, in my opinion) such as weaving and woodworking.

Language shapes thought and thought shapes language. This is true of all languages, be they "natural" languages, computer languages, or the languages of music, art, and craft. The inclination of Russian speakers to enter into the passive form or the propensity of the French to fall into allusion and metaphor reflect (or mold?) the way they are perceived and interact with the world. A programmer starting from the object-oriented world will look at problems from an object-oriented viewpoint as someone starting from a "structured" language environment will have their own orientation.

And here we start to show the differences between languages. What does "object-oriented" mean? How does it differ from "structured"? What is allusion? What is passive? Even when we believe that we are speaking in the same language, our history, education, experience, and environment changes what we actually hear and understand. An Inuit may have more than a dozen words for "snow" and Greek may have five (or more) words for "love" but in order to translate that to a language which does not have those words you end up with a definition that is not always able to be used directly within the context of a sentence or thought. English has grown to be the most widely spoken (not necessarily first language) language in the world by its extreme inclusionistic attitude; if you don't have the word in English then adopt it.

Communication is the process of producing information, transporting it, and understanding it. This happens with speech which is created, spoken, and heard. Or with sign language which is created, formed, and seen. It also happens between a user and a computer which is essentially a task of translation from one medium (screen display, keyboard, mouse) and language (symbol, letter, position) to/from storage and analysis. It also happens directly between computers in a method of communication protocols.

Protocols consist of the syntax and semantics of a language. I have worked with protocols most of my life -- from learning English as a baby, to learning to program, to more than 20 years of design and implementation of protocols allowing both data and signalling communication between microprocessors (or computers, if you prefer). In this area, I have published books on Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) (see "ISDN Implementor's Guide" at amazon.com) and Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) architectures ("ADSL: Standards, Implementation, and Architecture") which help to explain how these protocols work and can be used. From my work on these, and dozens of other data, transport, and signalling protocols, I have a sound foundation for understanding and defining other protocols that may not even yet be created.

Yet computer-to-computer protocols are still "easy". Why? Because the same definitions are used for the sender (transmitter) and receiver. If communication fails, it is because something was not implemented correctly or the definition of the protocol was faulty. So, it is altered until it does work.

But the the same is not true for user-to-computer and people-to-people communication. Why? Because people do not use the same language as other people or computers. Even people who are both, in theory, speaking the same language really are not. This is because their understanding (as opposed to hearing, seeing, or feeling) of the language is based on their own viewpoint which, in turn, is created by their history, education, and environment (physical, societal, and cultural).

So, back to the beginning and the title. What is a technoglot? It is someone who "speaks tech". In these blogs, I will strive to help understanding of technology for the non-technologist and to communicate ideas from one language to another. I hope that you have fun and that my blogs are useful.

Catalyst: Sometimes presence is all that is needed

 

     Catalysts are used in all kinds of chemical events. The presence of the catalyst allows other reactions to happen -- or happen more efficiently. At the end of the process, a catalyst is unchanged -- though it sometimes is directly used as part of a series of reactions during the process. In physical chemistry events, catalysts are often metals.

     Catalysts are called enzymes in biochemical events. The enzyme may be a protein or it may be ribonucleic acid (RNA). A simple description of the action of an enzyme would be that it acts as a specific carrier, or receptacle, where components may gather. (It is not always initially clear as to how a catalyst performs its task -- but finding out how sometimes has significant benefits with new processes and understanding.) The close proximity within the space of the receptacle speeds up, or causes, the further reactions between components. Afterwards, the enzyme is still available for the gathering of more components and continued processing.

     Catalysts can also exist in living events. Most events that come to mind immediately are not catalysts because, although they may cause considerable effects, they change in the process. A deluge may cause a mudslide or a flood but the form of the water will continue to change. It is not a chemical change but it is a physical change.

     A process that is not a catalyst can produce a catalyst. An earthquake may cause a river to be dammed which will form a lake. The lake will potentially not change (the level may change due to rain or drought) but the very presence of the lake will change the ecosystem with some animals, and plants, better able to survive and others less able to survive.

     A rock sticking up from a lake bottom will still be a rock sticking up from a lake bottom after a boat has hit it, causing the boat to sink. The dropping of a seed by a bird may start the process of a huge tree growing and the tree may become the center of a community.

     As you can see from the last few examples, the definition of a catalyst stretches from a physical, or biochemical, substance to that of things existing, whose presence causes changes to the area just because of their existence.

     In the area of social interactions and in business, a speaker can be a catalyst for change. Whether it is an "I have a dream" speech or a "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" speech -- words do have the power to cause others to create change. These can be considered as transient catalysts. The speeches do not change but they continue to exist only in recorded forms.

     But what about a person who just exerts a presence? An adult sitting (awake) in a room of children will usually have a quieting effect on the group. The presence of a  leader, or managerial observer, will often cause debate and discussion to be of a more constructive level. Perhaps it is because of an awareness that the person is capable of more than static presence -- that they can have active responses -- but the presence still matters.

     Finally, a leader can be a nexus of active example. Since they are no longer remaining in the same state, perhaps it is not proper to call them a catalyst. But, by being an active part, in isolation, their presence and activity may encourage others to participate.

The Burden of Responsibility: cleaning up the messes?

 

     In every family, in every team, in every group there will be someone who is least tolerant of messes, unfinished tasks, and unaddressed problems. That does not mean that that person is a "neatnik" or even extremely responsible. Just as within companies who just don't think they can live without ranking their employees, it is always within a range. For employee ratings, the "low end" might be someone in the top 5% of the population while others are in the top 4%. In the case of responsibility, it may mean that, for that person, the "straw that breaks the camel's back" is when there are 34 unwashed socks scattered across the floor rather than 40 unwashed socks (or an infinite number of unwashed socks).

     In the above cases, the responsibility is self-assigned. It is self-assigned because the person's characteristics are such that leaving the tasks not done causes greater inner turmoil than any efforts needed to take care of the problem.

     It is all relative. But responsibility includes assuming the duties of resolution of a problem. Those that recognize, and cannot stand to continue, a problem first will be the first to try to resolve the problem. They scoop up all of the unwashed socks and put them into the clothes washer (hopefully they also add detergent and turn it on). They pick up that book left on the floor that everyone keeps carefully stepping (or not so carefully, sometimes tripping) over.

     Responsibility is also closely tied to reliability. Responsible implies that you have authority, and will be held accountable, for what you are supposed to do. Reliability says that if you say you will do something then, if at all possible, you will do such. A person can be reliable without being responsible because a person can do things for which they have no authority or accountability. It is difficult to imagine making someone responsible if they are not also reliable. It would be a scenario of planned failure -- giving authority and accountability to someone who is unreliable.

     As is true of almost all internal change -- it cannot be imposed from without. There has to be a desire, within a person, to change. Thus, someone who is not responsible is not likely to become responsible unless something occurs to make them want to become responsible. Although there are non-military situations that force individual improvement and responsibility within the group -- there are more examples of such, in our society, within the military.

     In the movie "An Officer and a Gentleman", the character played by Richard Gere -- Zack Mayo -- is used to floating along, grifting, taking the easier paths. But his goal of feeling self-worth and belonging is a sufficient motivation for him to choose to change. This is the purpose of "tough love" -- creating a situation within which a person can choose (or not choose) to change. In the movie, it is either change or eviction from the military. In a family, the penalty may be eviction from the family support network. Personally, I think the latter is the harder to execute as the military already is structured with its firm rules and required behaviors. But, in either case, the change may be pressured from without but it must be the choice of the person to change.

Digital property: An opportunity for a marketing advantage

 

     I am in the process of downsizing -- primarily because the next place to which we move will be smaller (that place may be leaving the US) but also because having less means less to move, less to store, and less to be aware of. It is a form of simplification but some of that clutter is moved to the digital space rather than true elimination.

     I have had thousands of books (my highest total was around 3,500) and I have had hundreds of laserdiscs and, then, hundreds of DVDs (with a few Blu-Ray tossed in). My music library has been a more gentle transition as CDs became prevalent before I collected much -- but I still have a hundred LPs and 1,000+ CDs. I have moved from one format to another -- being blessed to have sufficient resources to be able to play this "keep up with technology" game. Moving all to digital is obviously the most compact (as of now) method for storage of text, graphics, audio, and video media.

     So, I am making what I expect to be the final transition of media for my collections. I have already found new homes for a couple thousand of my books and plan to find homes for almost all of the rest (I will retain a hundred or two of my most cherished ones). Our children have agreed to take some of them -- though the more recent generations have the wise tendency to not have lots of bulky things. (They have done the same "keep up with technology" game as I have -- but with videogames.)

     As I find homes for my physical media, some are "replaced" with digital copies. It is somewhat nuts for me to do that as my wife (who is much more practical and reasonable than I am in many ways) rents and borrows movies and books. But, as is true of many in my generation, I have been raised to consume and accumulate and recognition of that situation does not make it easy to live one's life differently.

     I mentioned above that I expect to continue to have a couple of hundred books. But CDs are hard to find new homes for -- and our children have not made a decision as to whether they want the CDs. I am keeping them for the time being. One thousand CDs weigh about 250 pounds (113.4 kg).

     A previous blog talked about the Houseboat Philosphy which expands on the idea of a houseboat (on Lake Union in Washington, to be specific) requiring the gross weight to stay below a certain limit. If more comes on, something goes off. 250 pounds of something that I have backed up in digital content seems like extra weight.

     But here we come to the "rub". All of the content I have imported into iTunes is now in Apple accessible format. If I get rid of the CDs and Apple (not likely but totally possible) decides to stop supporting audio media then I have lost my music collection. I was poking around a certain enormous online shopping site on which I have been a customer for 25 years. I was thinking about possibly dropping audiobook service. As I was looking through the possibilities, I came across the "by the way" fact that if I closed my account, I would no longer have access to any digital content -- a thousand (and still growing) books would no longer be "mine". If Apple decided to stop hosting digital movies, my 1000+ movies would be gone.

     If I have physical copies of books, records, CDs, DVDs, (laserdiscs, LPs) then they are mine. I can sell them, loan them, give them away, lose them, do a "Fahrenheit 451" on them or anything else I want. If I have a digital version of that content that is hosted by a company with its own format or theft control code then I am really only "leasing" the content. Digital books often cost the same as paperbacks -- but I have only very limited loan capabilities. If I die, my account must stay alive -- albeit as a "zombie" account -- for any of my family to continue to access "my" digital content and that is at the discretion of the digital storage provider.

     It is totally reasonable for a digital service provider to place restrictions on content such that it cannot be duplicated without additional royalties and service charges. It is also totally reasonable that, especially if the price is the same or greater, I should have the same ownership attributes for my digital property -- to give away, loan, or sell. I am certain that the companies can find someway to satisfy both needs. They just need incentive to do such. A company that finds a way to do that will immediately have a significant marketing advantage over all the other digital content providers. If no company will step up to the challenge, then legislation may be needed to protect property rights for the consumer.

AI/ML/DL/Life : Learning from Mistakes and Feedback

 

     My sons are presently in an "online only" situation for their college classes. In this, they are certainly not alone. We are fortunate that the college has had a good preventative routine that has kept on-campus infections considerably below the state average -- though we are all looking forward to being able to directly interact with teachers and classmates.

     Teachers have had a very difficult time in dealing with abruptly changed circumstances. Some have handled it well -- others not so well. All three of my younger sons have had classes (one has had three such classes) that accepts homework, quizzes, and tests -- AND DOES NOT GET ANYTHING BACK.

     Of course, I can't be certain how these teachers handled their classes when they were face-to-face. But I share in the frustrations of my sons when they have no idea what they have done right or what they have done wrong and need to correct. They cannot correct mistakes, they cannot improve and, in total, they cannot learn and the course has been rather hit-or-miss for value and the teachers, themselves, did not add any value. It would have been just as valuable, much less expensive, and much less frustrating to have taken a different online course with prerecorded content.

     Feedback is absolutely required for growth. Sometimes that feedback is direct, and physical. The old saying of letting the child burn themselves on the stove once and there won't be a second time is true (though we would all prefer that they learn before hurting themselves). Or, if you back up over a cliff while taking a selfie -- you will hopefully learn a valuable lesson if you survive. Some situations give direct feedback of a very serious nature.

     With the above example, a good teacher will cover the material on the material submitted. The best feedback is individual corrections, feedback, and (in those rare cases when it is possible) tutoring to overcome inaccuracies and problems. The next best is class coverage of the material, indicating the correct answers and, if time, how they were achieved. The largest problem with that is that, for online courses, the student may not have a copy of what they had submitted. A third, but still marginally acceptable, method of feedback is to post the questions and answers from which the student can hopefully learn.

     More often, the feedback is not direct. In this case, it must be interpreted. People start avoiding you after you have made a careless, or thoughtless, comment. Your gas mileage starts to decrease after you have neglected maintenance for too long of a period. You start panting, and wheezing, and may have chest or arm pains after years of not following a healthy, balanced, diet. There are a lot of such indirect feedback situations.

     With indirect feedback, questions and expert advice is often desirable. If your social situation has changed, ask a friend who will still talk with you and give honest feedback. If your gas mileage is dropping, take the car to a mechanic (of course, if you had done that regularly then this special visit might not have been necessary). You should have regular tests and physician checkups to make sure that your body is still on the right path for continued health.

     All of these things are necessary for people to learn, and grow. The same thing is true for all sub-specialities under the umbrella of "artificial intelligence" to one extent or other. Deep learning, which is a specialty under machine learning, tries to create its own feedback loops without human interactions.

     Some of us remember when a famous AI program competed on the quiz show "Jeopardy". If it got an answer correctly, it got it very quickly. But, if it didn't answer correctly, the answer was often totally wrong. The human audience didn't always see any correspondence between clue and answer at all (presumably the algorithms did see such). I am sure progress has been made since then but it is something to be constantly aware of when the human element is removed from the feedback loop.

      Neural networks are often used within deep learning. They are designed to work according to the way brains work -- by strengthening links between portions of data based upon usage and correlation. A correct correlation between data makes the link stronger and an incorrect correlation between data makes the link weaker. The definition of correct and incorrect is left to the designer/programmer/counselor. And the definition of correct versus incorrect may also vary depending on the status, and worldview, of the person creating the definition.

     The more interaction with a human for feedback, the better the chance of appropriate growth of an AI's ability to react -- but the greater the chance that it will adapt in the ways the human does. Somewhat a matter of creating a "clone" which thinks/reacts as the person who is giving the feedback. But, without the feedback from humans, the greater the chance of correlation between things that does not easily correlate with the real world.

     What are your thoughts? Create an autonomous system that self-corrects and brings in its own directions of feedback? This allows for faster growth and adaptation but only initial control. Or feedback from humans that slows down the process but increases relevancy and perhaps bias?

Energy Transfer: Fuel for Climate Change

 

     The global sea temperatures keep rising. So? Of course, there are problems associated directly with the extra heat of the water -- melting icebergs in particular and endangerment of animals in vulnerable ecosystems such as polar bears. Then there are the secondary effects of that extra water being put into the oceans from the melting of the icebergs -- islands going under water and coasts receding.

     The largest, most immediate, effects are from the actual temperature rise. Heat is energy. For food energy, that is measured in Calories (or kilocalories) [see my blogs on Science and Nutrition]. In the area of physics, the units are Joules (or kilojoules -- 1 Calorie == 4.18 kilojoules). Calories are measured directly in accordance with the heat of water. The definition of a Calorie (1 "large" Calorie is equal to 1000 "little" calories -- we normally talk about Calories) is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 liter of water 1 degree Celsius.

     So, every degree (Celsius) of heat increased in each liter of water is an extra Calorie (or 4.18 kilojoules) of energy stored as heat. Estimates vary a lot, but there are about 14,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters of water in the Earth's oceans. So, by raising the temperature of the world's oceans by one degree Celsius, we are storing an extra 14,000,000,000,000,000,000 Calories -- or around 58,500,000,000,000,000,000 kilojoules. That is a LOT of energy in storage.

     OK. With each degree rise of temperature of the oceans, we store a lot of energy. What happens with that energy? Ah, that is where climate comes into play. Climate is concerned with the ongoing effects on the environment around us over a period of time. Patterns of rain, drought, snow, tornados, tropical storms, hurricanes, hail storms, cyclones, cold waves, heat waves are all affected by the energy within the water on the planet or within the atmosphere of the planet. More energy, more "energetic" weather. The energy is stored as heat but can be used as an intensifier for many types of weather patterns -- not just those associated with heat.

     Intensified weather means just that. Colder cold spells, longer and dryer draughts, more frequent and stronger tornados and hurricanes, air streams moved from "traditional" paths. All this means that "averages", including 50-year events or 100-year events are all up for grabs. They are in the process of change -- climate change.

Tech scalpers: attacks and defenses

 

     Once upon a time, scalpers were just folks who went to a ticket agency, possibly having waited in line (or paid someone else to wait for them), got as many tickets to the event (sports, concert, ...) as possible and then stood outside the event location trying to sell them for as much as the market would bear. An event that was not sold out would probably only get back the ticket price (or less). But an event that was sold out and very popular -- who knows the price that one could get. It was usually considered to be illegal but very difficult to enforce.

     In current days, although "old-style" scalpers still exist, the tech scalpers have largely taken their place. Online purchases/access means online scalpers. Events for scalping exist in the same venue as brick-and-board. Tickets or products become available for sale at a specific, predetermined, time and place. OR tickets or products will become available at an unspecified time -- "hit and miss".

     For the tech scalper, these events are met by automation -- or "bots". A bot will "hang around" for the appropriate time, or will do frequent snapshots of web pages to compare in order to find out when something is now available, and pounce. A human at a keyboard can do the same thing (or can make use of some of the same apps that tech scalpers use) but not nearly as promptly. And a human must be around when the event occurs -- the bots can be set up to do everything without further intervention by humans.

     In attempts to make purchases, and access, fair -- limits are often imposed. "Only ten tickets per purchaser." Or, "only four widgets per session". For a human, that is successful. For a tech scalper, that just means that they need to clone and multiply. Limits per session? Have massive numbers of multiple sessions. Limits per purchaser? Have multiple accounts.

     The purchaser, or tech scalper, has noticed the event and gotten in-line. The goal now is to determine the item to be purchased and check out as quickly as possible.

     We have reached the point where different types of events have different requirements. In order to purchase a ticket, a choice of seat/ticket must be done. For speed, the "best seat available" option is usually open but not always. For a scarce item now available, there is usually only one choice.

     The amount of time between noticing something is available and choosing it is the first critical amount of time and the tech scalper has the advantage. After choosing the item, there are two ways the seller can handle it. They can take the item out of inventory or they can just keep allowing items to be chosen as long as there are still items available that have not been purchased.

     If the seller takes something out of inventory upon choosing, they run the risk of having it "tied up" and not available for sale to anyone else -- and the first person may choose to not do the final purchase. For sellers who choose this option, there is usually a specific time counter for the purchaser to complete the purchase before the item is released back to inventory. The time limit is not always explicit.

     For sellers who leave it in inventory, the seller has the advantage that it is likely that, for popular items, all the items will be sold. The buyers, however, are in the situation where 500 items may be chosen 5000 times and the first 500 to finish the task of purchasing are the winners.

     In this situation, the tech scalpers are the ultimate winners. Although a few of the humans might get a ticket or item, most of the purchases by the tech scalpers will succeed. Humans have possible opportunities only when there are more items than scalping "units" (number of active scalping programs times number of purchases possible per program). Without automation, humans cannot beat the tech scalpers if the scalping units exceed the number of items available except with the very best of luck.

     Humans can improve their odds by being as ready as possible when the item becomes available by having to ONLY choose and buy. Even there, the human is at a disadvantage because of bandwidth limitations in which the tech scalper is likely to have a high-speed connection.

     In my opinion, for scarce items, sellers should always do the time-out method and pull it out of inventory when chosen. Any other choice gives the "game" to the tech scalpers.

Structures: Scaffolds for growth

 

     For many startups, the total rule is "lean, green, mean". Do what you most need to do, as fast as you can, with as little excess, or non-mandatory, work as possible. When I was co-founder of our company, it was not unusual to be working 80-hour weeks. We knew what we had to produce and we had a few methods to try to get it into the hands of people who would pay us for them. (We soon needed to expand that "marketing and sales" aspect of the business.)

     That is the basics of trade in a nutshell -- produce what is of value to others who will give back things of value to you.

     That works in a barter economy as well as in an industrialized, capitalistic, economy. It is also true within other viable economic systems. As the business, or economy, or government, grows it can often end up "abstracted" where it is difficult to say exactly what things of value are being exchanged.

     Leap ahead and start imagining a business that has thousands of people working to provide tens of thousands of things of value and having to keep track of a hundred thousand purchases and transactions. If it all works smoothly then it could be done in the same manner as when the trade was just between you and someone else -- that simple, basic, barter agreement.

     But this is reality. There are few one-to-one relationships between any person and any proceeding from start to finish. Person A does one part to process C and Person B does something different to process G which directly influences process C but A has no direct visibility to process G.

     Confusing? Absolutely. And this is still only a very simple situation. There needs to be some type of documentation -- method of communication -- between Person B and Person A that provides insight into relevant aspects of Process G without inundating Person A with all of the other knowledge and systems that Person B is handling.

     So, simple transactions have need of simple processes. High numbers of interrelated transactions, people, and processes have need of much better access to, and keeping track of, relevant information. How do you succeed in growing the business from simple to complex?

     The base answer is "structures" which can be loosely defined as ways to organize information about what is being done, (who/what/when/where/why) by the people who originate the information, to have it accessible to those who need to know that information. The other leg is "processes" -- which is involved with how that information is processed, saved, distributed, and otherwise not lost in the cascading effects of a successful large business.

     Processes can (and do) make use of various apps and programs. But without structures, the processes cannot do much of anything because they don't have the data with which to use those processes. Also, processes differ with every aspect of the business. A process for generating ideas. A process for estimating, and keeping track of, work. A process for manufacturing inventory and supply control chains. And so forth. But all of the processes rely on structures.

     The primary importance of determining just what information is needed for the business is that it remains approximately the same no matter how large the company gets. (Yes, as a business reaches certain growth points, new regulations may come into play.) This facilitates growth. The information has to be there but, when the company is small, it can be retained within various people's memories. Just like it seems to be true to a teenager, all employees of a startup are deemed to be immortal and those valuable data are always available.

     Absurd? Certainly. But it is so very easy to eliminate those items, that seem to not immediately affect the bottom line, when you are small, focused, and overworked. Resist. The data can be written on a large notepad or, for transitory data, on a white board. But get it written down. As the company grows, you are going to run out of room on those notepads or they will become too many to search through easily. So, you develop (or obtain) new processes and applications that help you to manage that data. But you already are used to getting, and documenting, that data. You are prepared for growth.

     

Substitution: A spotlight on biases and prejudices

 

     There is a difference between direct, active biases and prejudices and indirect, passive biases and prejudices. The difference is largely one of being conscious of the situation. If you are aware that you have biases and prejudices and you take no action to eliminate, or reduce, them then you are actively encouraging them. Certainly, there are people and groups in this category.

     But there are many more situations of passive bias and prejudices. Being passive and indirect, and part of everyday life, these types of biases and prejudices become part of the general environment. It is necessary to recognize these situations and bring them to the conscious level in order to struggle against, and eliminate, them.

     How can this be done? One method that I suggest is that of substitution. This is another way of saying "walk in their shoes" but it is more of a general exercise than a specific example. No matter how much it might be desired, it is truly impossible to be part of the society, the history, and the world,  of another person. There is no way to live another's life.

     The best that we can do is to recognize that we treat others differently. In the case of substitution, we take a situation and "substitute" various factors to determine whether it changes the way we think about it.

     Changing the use of the word "mailman" to "postal carrier" was ridiculed. But, in the years since that change was made, we now have a large number of female postal carriers in addition to male postal carriers. The change of word did not matter but the change in thought did. Language directly affects the way we think.

     In other areas, if a person uses a pronoun for a position or job category, what happens if you substitute a different pronoun? If you are used to saying "he did a good job", how does it change the way you think about it if it is now "she did a good job"? Does the change in pronoun make you uncomfortable? Do you find it hard to visualize someone different in that role? Once upon a time, in the U.S., nurses were mostly men. Then they became female. Then we started to consciously make it a position for men and women. The same is true for secretaries (now, often, administrative assistants).

     Doctors, CEOs, department heads, directors, business owners -- substitute the pronoun used and see if you look at the position differently. Note that changing the title to a non-genderized form is not sufficient. CEO is not a gender specific word, but people do not sufficiently use "she" or "her" with the title. Since, in English, pronouns are what specifies gender, use of alternating genders is needed to retrain expectations. In other languages, the gender is often directly part of the title but not always.

     Substitution methods do not stop at pronouns, language, and gender. You see a group of young people doing something in a store or on a street. Change their skin color, or external religious symbolism, or the way they are clothed within your mind. If you make that change, do you react, or think about them, differently? If you find yourself reacting differently, you can notice it. Once consciously aware, it is a situation you can now address.

     This is not just a mind game. Studies have been performed showing photos of people in various normal activities and situations. The photos have people in the driver's seat of a car, shopping, walking in a high-priced neighborhood (or low-end neighborhood), talking with a teacher, and so forth. When the researchers kept all other factors the same and just changed one in the photos (it might be the way they are dressed or their skin color or external religious indication or whatever), there were significant differences in the way people described the people in the photos.

     Recently, the same tests were performed with police officers of several cities. In spite of being aware of the general subject of the tests, the description of the people in the photos differed dependent on skin color, gender, and other aspects.

     When job applications are stripped of identification markers, the pool of acceptable candidates change. Things such as names, addresses, specific affiliations are removed or substituted with generic items. The person reading the application cannot determine gender or ethnic or religious heritage. And it makes a difference.

     Photos, of course, make a considerable difference. Since face to face interaction is a large part of being able to perform most jobs, it is difficult to know just how this factor can be made generic within in-person job interviews. It is necessary to know how they speak, how they listen, their body language, and general conduct.

     Perhaps the best we can do, at present, is to keep the first levels of applications, which are not in person,  generic. Any suggestions?

The Path to Success: Why is failure so valuable?

 

     We have all encountered advice to "don't worry about failure ... that is just one step towards success". I'm certainly not going to write to contradict this advice. In my opinion, it is very good advice. However, most of the time, when this is relayed, there is no context as to WHY failure is so valuable. There are many different ways to fail and I am guessing that few people would commend people on the ability to keep failing the same way over and over. It is very important to learn from the failure. Keep making new mistakes.

     Success ... Failure. You are the one that defines those terms. It can apply to the business world, the interpersonal world, family, raising children, or anything else. Still, however you define 'failure', there is a good chance that you will have one or more episodes of failure before you approach what you define as success. What lessons can you pull out of 'failure'?

• What you did right. First thing, recognize that you didn't 'fail' at everything you did. Hopefully you did more things right than on a previous attempt. Recognize yourself for what you did right. Make a list. Analyze them. What did you change from previous attempts to make the outcome better? Give yourself kudos for what you did right. Allow those positive aspects to inspire yourself to work on the next iteration.
  
  
• What you did wrong. Where did the weaknesses show up? Did you try to address them as soon as you recognized them? Did a sequence of negative things occur and you only recognized it once it was too far along the wrong path? Were the things that happened universally 'wrong' or would they have been appropriate in other circumstances?
  
  Sometimes 'failures' occur because of others' actions. So, 'you' did not do anything wrong. But, it does no good to blame others even if they did things that led to 'failure'. You are in charge of yourself. You are in charge of your journey. How would you recognize those problems in the future? How could you compensate for those problems? Often, you have to rely on others to achieve your goals. Monitor, analyze, compensate, mentor -- but don't waste the energy on blaming. Rather, understand how to avoid it in the future.
  
  
• Would a change in process help? Sometimes it isn't something you did 'wrong' -- it's that you did something at the wrong time in the process. You 'rushed' something or you delayed and missed an opportunity. Generally you want to think/plan, prepare, implement, review, revise but there may be sub-processes involved that must be in their own proper order.
  
  
• Did you have the right skills to be applied (your own or others)? Certain skills are needed at different times in the process. In the example of starting a business, there are different skills needed when you are putting the business together than once the company is moving along steadily. Actually, perhaps not DIFFERENT skills but a different balance of skills. If you have a great idea and a great business plan then you might get seed money and be able to launch but you need to be able to network and investigate competition and keep track of trends to continue to be viable. "A shark that stops moving cannot live."
  
  
• At what point could you recognize you had little chance to succeed? This is a skill that is often a criterion for leadership. Entrepreneurs make mistakes. Leaders make mistakes. People make mistakes. Sometimes you can recover from a mistake. Once you recognize there is no chance to reach your goal, salvage what you can in as good of a way as possible so that you have resources with which to start your next attempt. A long, painful, death may appear to be a good thing because it gives you more time but it may also drain resources that could be better used in other ways.
  
  
• Did you wind up the scenario in such a way that you could try again? This is associated with the previous bullet but more a matter of burning bridges. Be honest. Be up front. If you are not succeeding, you will not make people, who have hoped you would succeed, happy by telling them everything is OK when it is not. You will lose trust. Trust and reputation are valuable aspects that are hard to build and easy to lose. Stay honorable and well-regarded.
  

     We are each on our own special journeys. The roads are not always smooth. Keep a spare, have tools to repair, be able to call for help, recognize when to abandon the vehicle and start walking.