Influencers: celebrities both notorious and admired

 

    I suspect that it is often the same worldwide but, in the US, there is a tendency to take one characteristic (positive or negative) and allow the value placed upon it to expand and be applied to the rest of the person. The characteristic may be an action, a behavior, or anything.

     We most often think of celebrities as those that we see, and hear, often. Actors, sports stars, famous novelists, politicians, royalty, content creators, and so forth. Because of their visibility by many, they enter the arena of "influencers".  But celebrities can also be less visible -- but still very impactful -- within an industry or segment of economy. People pay attention to their opinions about all kinds of things -- of which they may actually have little, or no, knowledge.

      A person may be a marketing genius (though, perhaps, ruthless) -- people fall over themselves asking for advice in all kinds of other areas of knowledge. Another person is a magnificent technical evangelist -- but is expected to also be a good manager and administrator. Most of us in technical fields are very aware of excellent technical people who were rewarded by being put into management positions for which they had no applicable skills. (Many companies now have dual ladders -- but many still do not.)

     People high on the social scale (based on heredity or money amassed) are given credit for that which they have not done (and would not be able to do). Their advice is sought even if the reality is they have only had the fortune to be born to wealthy, or high social-class, parents. The "higher class" are elevated upon pedestals and expected to do miracles in all ways. In a parallel way, the stigma of "lower class" roots, or current situation, may cause people to have their knowledge, abilities, and experiences disregarded.

     We can make these expectations come true. If you have confidence in someone, then that helps them to have confidence (perhaps even arrogance) and a person with confidence can often do better than one without. The opposite holds also -- as demonstrated in many psychological experiments -- that lack of confidence in someone can create a situation with terrible results. The best overall results can occur by treating everyone, of whatever background, with respect and appreciation for what they have actually done.

     Perspective from the other end -- that of someone who has done something very bad and is extrapolated to be a very bad person in total -- is hard to argue against. That one area of wrongness may, indeed, overshadow all other aspects. If a person is a serial murderer then the fact that they volunteer to deliver food to the needy, treat their pets well, and contribute to their church are truly not very important aspects. The reality may be that, like everyone, they are a complex mixture of "good" and "bad" but the bad outweighs the good.

     There have always been "influencers" -- not just in the age of electronic media. Sometimes that influence can be used in great, and noble, ways. Sometimes not. As long as we are conscious about what we are doing and about what they truly know, there is no problem. But, that is not always the case.

Fault, Blame, & Responsibility: What's the Difference?

 

     One thing that President Harry Truman is best remembered for is a plaque he had made for his desk indicating "The Buck Stops Here". He had seen such a sign on a tour and asked if they could make one for him, The slogan emphasizes the opposite of "pass the buck". The first says that final responsibility resides with them. The second is avoidance of all responsibility. We have probably all known people who avoided responsibility. If we are fortunate, we have also known people who accepted final responsibility. Alas, those who avoid appear to be greater in number than those who accept.

     But, what is responsibility? Being responsible means you accept the consequences of results of actions. You apologize and act to prevent future occurrence of the event. If possible, you correct and amend effects such that any bad outcomes are lessened. There may be repercussions -- you might be fired, or not re-elected, or publicly (or privately) rebuked. Taking responsibility means not avoiding repercussions.

     There were surely many things that President Truman had no direct knowledge of, made no direct decisions about, and had no known way of affecting outcomes. Why would he be responsible for such events? Responsibility includes indirect responsibility. Indirect responsibility implies delegation and this is the primary reason for Truman's plaque. As President, he had people delegated and those people had other people delegated and so on -- but delegation does not eliminate responsibility. All of their actions (or lack thereof), and that of those reporting back to your delegates, and so on are the same as a "virtual" you.

     But how about fault and blame? Fault is the cause of the problem. It may involve an action or the lack of a needed action. It may involve an "act of nature" (earthquake, hurricane, flood, ...) It may have been something deliberate, accidental, or spontaneous (without direct initiation). The initial known point of fault may have one, or many, other problems which have cascaded into the visible fault. The fault observed may not be the place that needs to be changed to prevent (or lessen the likelihood) of future faults.

     Blame is an action that is an expression of emotion. It may be based on anger, fear, frustration, shame or something else. Fault is the action but blame is the emotional reaction. Blame is not the same as discovering problems or discovering the person, or group, responsible for problems. Blame is often directed at those we perceive as causing a problem -- those with direct responsibility. But those we blame are not always those who truly caused the problem. The emotionally charged action makes clear analysis difficult. Blame is a destructive action. Changing things such that a fault does not occur again is a constructive action.

     Note that this blog is focused on problems -- negative results. Responsibility also exists for positive results and is sometimes recognized -- but, perhaps, not often enough. The positive side of faults are accomplishments. Appreciation is the positive side of blame.

Simple does not mean Easy

 

     "Pay attention", "Love your neighbor as you do yourself", "Don't stress out over the little things", "forget what hurt you but never forget what it taught you". "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Such wonderful adages. There are business segments that have a primary product of manufacturing posters, plaques, and other items to spread these adages (and proverbs) far and wide. We can read them and say "of course, that is obvious". But, if one examines society and talk among ourselves, we find that even though the adages may be very easy to state -- and, perhaps, understand -- they are not put into action very often.

     "Love your neighbor as you do yourself." One of the difficulties in putting adages into action is that we are so awfully good at taking them apart and reducing them to small edge conditions. "Love your neighbor". Who is our neighbor? Are our neighbors the people who live next door with whom we have never spoken -- or are they people within our common religious community who are neighbors of spirit even if they live in a different city? Are they people that look like us, pray like us, have the same amount of spendable income as we do?

     Or are they everyone? In that case, it can lead to a more active separation of people -- leading some people to say that only this set of people are really people and the others are not really people. One of the first actions taken by any group wanting to initiate hostilities towards, or take advantage of, another group is to start emphasizing differences and start to separate them from the "correct" pool of people.

     "Don't stress out over the little things." What is a little thing? It surely varies between people -- one person's "little" thing may be another person's "big" thing. Or, if looked at from the view point of someone examining our lives from the vantage of Alpha Centauri, maybe everything we do is a little thing? But such an evaluation must surely be from a subjective, personal, viewpoint. And is it stress that will keep us actively working with the "thing" -- or is it stress that will cause us to neglect other "things" and negatively affect our health?

     "Pay attention". Oh boy! Sure, we want to pay attention but it is physically, and neurologically, impossible to pay attention to everything. When someone says "pay attention" they usually are saying "pay attention to me" or "pay attention to the thing I have assigned you to do". But those don't make good adages.

     "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". OK. Sounds reasonable. But, it is similar to someone giving you directions such as "turn left a street before you see a white church on the right". Unless you are aware of the situation for which you can enact the prevention, there really isn't much to be done. Sometimes you may be aware but, in that case, what you are really doing is preparation -- not prevention.

     Perhaps you have a favorite adage that sounds great, you'd love to follow it, but it just doesn't seem to happen? Or you have one that is not only simple to say and remember but also easy to follow?

     Personally, I work with a line from an old Christmas movie ("Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer"). "Just put one foot in front of the other and soon you'll be walking out the door." Sure hope I am pointing towards the door as it will be a lot harder walking through the wall.

An extension of thought and body: music, programming, and art in general

 

     Once upon a time, after I had been working on developing a project for Bell Labs for about a year and a half, I woke up with a line of code staring me in the eye (not literally -- this was before laptops -- it was all in my mind) and showing me how to fix a bug I had been told about the day before. I went to work, fixed the bug, tested it, and submitted it to the code base. Then I started looking around for a new project to work on. It might have been useful to the company but getting that merged with the software (tens of thousands of lines of code which I had written) was not a healthy sign.

     As a child, I took various music lessons. The first -- and still my favorite -- instrument was the violin. I started off really horrible (but almost everyone does). But I got better and by the end of elementary school, I was part of a string quartet. No danger of a record label but no one stood up and ran out screaming. I was getting decent but then, as part of a perpetual budget cut, the school district said goodbye to the string instructor and my family couldn't afford private lessons. Later, because brass was still possible, I tried cornet but just didn't get excited. I then tried organ which I liked but schoolwork was taking more and more time and choices had to be made.

     So, how do these experiences relate? I worked so hard, and long, on the software that I could remember, and visualize, it. I could do a virtual execution of the code, in my mind, to track down possible data paths where there might be bugs. In music, I reached the point where I no longer thought about how to play a note. The connection between written music and playing was starting to disappear as fluency was being established.

     Music, programming, art, language. Once the tools are mastered you can get an idea and then put it down in the appropriate form. For programming, that might be Java, or 'C', or machine language, or whatever. In music, it might come out as sounds from a piano, or guitar, or a sax. But the cool part is that moment when you stop making the transition from thought to action as a conscious act. The piano becomes an extension of your body. You tell it to play notes and chords with timing and rests and it does it. The more you practice, the less the conscious mind is involved. It can be equally true with software or charcoal or driving a race car.

     Of course, not all has to go through the process of conscious to automatic. The brain stem is largely ready for us at birth -- so we (most of us) can breathe and see and hear and have our bodies respond properly to food and such. There are disciplines that appear to allow conscious control over the activities controlled by the brainstem but we are fortunate that most arrive pre-programmed. Although I do not know whether it is true, perhaps fluency in conscious activity may start to intrude into brain stem use.

     Perhaps after another one or two hundred thousand more words of writing, my writing will enter into that state of fluency.

Remember the goal: moving towards a destination

 

     I am a Myers-Briggs INFJ -- for those of you who have any interest in such personality categorization methods. I have lots of other results from other inventory methods. They are of interest to me because I am always trying to understand, and improve, myself as well as gain greater insight into others so that I can better communicate with them and be of assistance to them.

     But, for this blog, it is that "J" (Judicious) categorization that is of interest. My wife is of the P direction (it's a sliding scale -- no absolutes) or "Process-oriented". I am goal-oriented. She is see-what's-on-the path oriented. Within our marriage we have each worked hard to become more comfortable with the other's inclinations. At the least, it is important to be aware so that explosions can be avoided.

      I have come to grok the reality that the journey really is important. Not only that but I now recognize that changing the goal does not indicate a failure. These are a couple of the many blessings that have come from my marriage. Such blessings arise out of the continuous work that a marriage requires.

     Just because it is important to smell the flowers along the path, stop to move the worms off the sidewalk, and watch out for uneven bricks it does NOT mean that you should not have a destination. Although I can envision the idea of trying to stay in the same place for the rest of one's life, it really is not possible. Our bodies age. Things need to be done to stay alive. Others exist as a part of life and the interaction with them will cause perturbations just as two celestial bodies do a dance through the heavens.

     Given that staying still is not possible, the direction we choose will affect what things we can observe, enjoy, learn from, and participate in along the way. If we choose to change directions because of how we, ourselves, have changed on our journey then count our blessings and move along.

     Changing goals is OK. Changing goals may be important because of changes within yourself or your environment. Changing goals may mean changing directions and that change of direction will affect what you encounter in your journey.

     Enjoy!

Plan for Success requires a different mindset than planning for problems

 

     Failure often seems to help itself be planned for -- because it is an ongoing, inevitable process of life. People get sick. Equipment breaks. Contracts are not obtained. Someone drives a car through the front store window. And so forth.

     But, even though we (all) want to achieve success, we rarely explicitly plan for it.

     When a business is starting out, it is a good thing to be "mean and lean". This means that people are putting lots of effort into it with as few people as possible. Many do multiple jobs. When I, and my business partner, started our business, I was Vice President of Engineering, head of client support and training, head of sales support, coordinating head of project development and product management, and I was also in charge of cleaning the restroom when it was necessary. We all worked 60 to 70 hours a week -- because we all had a dream of being able to build something that we could profit from and which would provide a useful societal service.

     At Bell Labs, we had a department head who was a very strong technical person and also had a lot of extra energy. He had been quickly promoted from Member of Technical Staff to manager. While at managerial level, his team did great -- because he did all of the work assigned to his team. He had no managerial, or delegating, skills and he chose to not develop them. He did what he did best -- produce products. Not quite as quickly, he was promoted from manager to department head. And there he stuck. He no longer could do all the work (it was amazing he could do the work of seven people -- 40 people was just too much). He slowly developed some managerial skills -- enough to keep his department from falling apart (and he had some good managers reporting to him) but he had reached the top for him.

     Mean and lean -- until you can't do that anymore. People can work 60 hour work weeks for a while -- but not forever. Putting more wicks on the candle just means the wax will be used up more quickly. Juggling tasks can be done when there's only a bit to be done on each -- past that and things will be dropped.

     The "best" time to plan for growth, and success, is when you aren't in the process of running as fast as you can. If you have to do several different roles, clearly identify them, decide on processes that can be used when you are dealing with much larger amounts. Be prepared to split and expand. Tools that are overkill at the beginning can be indispensable as you grow. When we started our company, we were strong on marketing and sales and technical development. We were weak on management and finances. Management skills we succeeded in developing as we went along -- though I am certain that having good, strong, managers would have greatly helped us to build the company. Finances -- that is what eventually doomed us. We made believe that we knew what we needed to do and when we needed to do it. We didn't.

     The first part of growth, and success, in business is structure and function. The second part is product. We had a great portfolio of products. Well respected in the field. An architecture that expanded and met our needs for more than fifteen years. A general base that we could continue to expand in kind -- until we couldn't. At some point, the market gets saturated or technological directions change. "The shark must keep moving or it dies."

     What did we need to do to succeed in this area? Networking would have been number one. It is vital to know what is actually being deployed, what is being marketed, in the field. You can read about maybes in technical and business magazines but the conferences and market displays is what companies are actually investing in and betting on. Second would be partnerships. They aren't vital -- but they disperse the risk in going after the "next great thing". With partners, perhaps you can have four irons in the fire rather than one or two. It is similar to venture capital. Lose on a couple, break even on a few, and hit a home run on one. It is partially a matter of numbers.

     Finally, luck is still part of the business. Luck, as defined as things happening about which we have no known control. Bet on three possible new product lines. All three can fail. Design a new widget that everyone has been demanding. A major company -- with which you don't have the least chance to compete -- brings out a parallel product three months after your launch. Things happen.

     But you can minimize the risk.

A Free Lunch is a Prepaid Lunch

 

     Looking back over my various blogs, I have approached this issue several times over the past 15 years. But it still comes up and there are different directions from which to look at it.

     "There is no such thing as a free lunch." True. Even in a situation where you are outside of the societal economy (hiking in the woods in a non-park area where you have permissions to hunt/forage -- not sure many such places still exist), the lunch is paid for with time and energy to find, capture, prepare, and then eat the lunch.

     But the phrase is more often used within a societal economy. You get a "free dinner" for listening to a lecture on how to prepare for retirement (part of a company's advertisement budget). You get a "free lunch" at a local food bank (paid for within the community's/individual's desire to help those who are less fortunate). Your company gives you "free snacks" or "free meals" to have while you are within the company building working on your assignments (paid for as part of overall "loaded" salaries).

     The point is that you can get a free lunch -- defined as not having to pay cash/credit at that time in order to enjoy the lunch. But, in the background, that lunch is included in the budget for some other individual/corporation/product.

     This applies also to other services -- not just food. Public libraries are free to use. They are paid for by community taxes which have been allocated to something that the community has agreed is important. Although there are still some "subscription" fire fighting services in the world (including the US), most are public fire fighting services and have the same rules apply. The same goes for public police departments.

     Within the community (the community can be local, county/parish/township, state, or federal), there is an agreement that the services benefit the community. Either it is desirable that everyone "should" make use of them (such as public libraries) or that they need to be available to everyone (police help, firefighters, etc.)

     It is certainly possible to have all services as pay-for-use. All roads beyond your driveway can be "toll" roads where you have to specifically pay for them to use them (and, presumably, people without cars will not pay -- except as it exists as part of a delivery charge or ambulance charge, or service charge). If you want a book and services exchange point, become a member and you have access to library services. Want armed security? Pay for a guard service (more affluent people often want/need to have additional security above and beyond that provided by the community).

     Sounds great, you say? Let people pay only for what they want to use. Sound fair? The problem is that individual choice does not always promote the best for the community. No public education -- only the better paid get education for their children and the group of uneducated gets larger and larger with each generation and the community soon does not have enough people who can keep the economy going. And that education has to continue to the point of having a sufficiently educated person to support the community.

     No public police or fire capabilities? Now we're talking "insurance" -- people often bet that bad won't happen but, statistically, bad usually does happen eventually. The family collapses and the poor group expands once again. When something is needed for a community to prosper, it is better for the community to make certain that it is available.

     Sometimes a "free" service may be provided as part of a specific product or environment. Other times, they may be investments for the future. In any case, it is not free as it is part of the overall costs in the background -- but they may be free for the individual who will either pay as part of overall fees/taxes or who use them to prepare for the future -- to be a productive member who can support the community which will then support the services.

Unions: the leverage of the group versus the individual

 

     "I'm a good employer. I already give among the best benefits in the business. Retention is high and voluntary attendance at the company functions is good. Why would my employees want to be part of a union?"

     In a private company, there are owners, employees (including managers), and customers. In a publicly traded company, board members and stockholders are added to the mix (plus market analysts). In an ideal world, everyone is well taken care of and all are happy. In a booming economy and a booming company, it may get close to that point (though the word "more" seems to be an unrelenting fixture within the market economy -- especially in the US).

     But the economy is NOT always booming. And companies, either through mistakes or changes in the market, can lose the gleaming shine that makes everyone pleased with them. In these periods of decline, even when no mistakes have been made, choices must be made as it is no longer possible to even attempt to please everyone. 

     What are the priorities of a company? I am in agreement that well-cared-for employees will voluntarily want to do the best they can for the company and the customers. Thus, a high priority exists to take care of the employees. But, for publicly-traded companies, the happiness of the stockholders translates into higher stock prices and, thus, greater value to all who have invested in the company. Depending on company benefits and ownership, this may be directly of financial benefit to many, or most, of the employees. This argues that perception of stock/company value should be of the highest priority.

     Line managers are rarely considered to be among the most important parts of a company. However, for publicly-traded companies in the US, the advisory boards seem to want to push C-level salaries, bonuses, benefits, and parachutes as high as conceivable based on the idea that if their C-level execs are paid so much they (and the company of which they are part) will be perceived as also being "winners" within the game of acquiring the "best" executive level people. This competitive formula is difficult for C-level people to resist yet it does factor into how the income of the company is distributed.

     Moving back to the original question then, why would people want to be part of a union?

     Treatment of employees depends on company policies. With changes in high-level corporate management, company policies can change. They may change due to changes in corporate profitability or they may change due to changes in company advisory culture. Without a union, employees are left in the same way that most people perceive Blanche DuBois in the play/movie "A Streetcar named desire". As her character is quoted, "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers".

     Within a smaller company, most people should know each other and, certainly, all of the employees should know their managers and the managers know their employees. But, what about within a company with thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of people? The higher-level managers will not know all of the employees. The general employee is indeed in the same situation as Blanche DuBois.

     And that is a very insecure place to be. 

     Supply/demand can give the general employee leverage. If people of desired skills and experience are difficult to attract and retain, they inherently warrant more support. But if it is perceived that the employee may easily be replaced with someone else, they have very little perceived inherent value and have almost no leverage individually.

     That word "individually" is the key to unions. While a single employee has limited leverage, the majority (or universal) set of employees of a company has great leverage.

     Does being part of a union have disadvantages? As is true of many things, the advantages have a shadow side. Being part of a group, rather than an individual, means that there is less flexibility for the company to give unscheduled perks -- such as extra "free" days, or swag packages, or anything that may not be applicable under the terms of the agreements with the workers' union.

     For smaller companies (and some well-structured larger companies), unions can lessen the feeling of being part of a company "family". Also, a union that continues to grow may encounter the same problems as happened in the 1970s and 80s where leadership is now in a hierarchical position of power over the "rank and file" and the power of the group is used more for personal power and control than for the benefit of the employees.

     Companies have many sub-groups to consider, and take care of. Changing conditions carry with them a change in the ability to take care of each sub-group. Unions can help give individuals leverage -- especially within large companies -- but that same grouping carries certain limitations.

Endless Cycles: Laundry, Sisyphus, and SRM

 

     Last night, after dinner was completed, we took all the dishes and got them ready for the dishwasher and started up the cycle. Nothing new. Just something that we had done 15,000 times (or more) before. When we had our twins, we doubled the pleasure (truthfully) and doubled the number of times per day to change diapers. I counted back then (I AM a nerd and a geek, of course) but I cannot quite remember the number of times. Probably 8,000 changes of diapers total for the twins and another 4,000 for their older brother. When I first started changing diapers, I was sometimes not quite fast enough and got surprises that I later had to clean up -- but by the end of that 12,000th diaper, I could do it in the dark, while balancing a bowl of grapes on my head, and keep the surrounding area as clean as it was before I started. "Practice makes perfect."

     Back when I was doing the laundry for the whole family (five or six in the household at a time), I would have to do laundry (usually only one washer load) three times a week -- over 1,000 loads per year. Now that the children do (or don't do -- up to them) their own laundry, I am only doing a load per week (normally, when I clean the sheets there is an extra load) so a third of that. Note that I am not (well, I am mentioning it) counting preparation of meals because each meal is a bit different. The meal has different ingredients and takes a different amount of time and goes through different processes. There have been a LOT of meals prepared but they aren't, strictly speaking, a repetition.

     These repetitions are a natural set of results from life processes. You eat, you have to clean up afterwards (even if it is just burying the bones and the ashes). Digestion involves a series of events that cannot be avoided while you are living. Clothes, and the need to wash them, are needed in colder climates and socially required in others. I am sure that many have the occasional thought (as I do) that this must be a punishment of some sort. Old Sisyphus and his endless pushing the boulder up the side of the mountain comes to mind. But it probably is NOT a punishment.

     Sometimes I think of the cartoon series "The Jetsons". To have Rosie clean up after all the messes. It doesn't reduce them, it just means that someone/something does it for you.

     Which leads to the work side of this blog (it is not too surprising that most topics have a work side as well as a personal side since life -- like the geographical planet -- has no real borders). I have done some work in an area that Google calls "Site Reliability Maintenance" (SRM). I also took a Coursera course in an introduction to the Google-explicit SRM. When problems occur (and they do occur -- the goal is to reduce them, recognizing that they can never be eliminated), fix them quickly, fix them well, and reduce the possibility of the same problem happening in the future. There are lots of statistical formulas in conjunction with different approaches and followups.

     One thing that comes up is that if a problem occurs "frequently" -- even if that frequency is still within Reliability Objectives limits -- then it should be investigated to see if there may be some way to have it handled more quickly or easily in the future. Ideally, this would mean the problem is addressed "automatically" where the recovery process is triggered and the steps are done without further intervention by humans. (It still counts as an interruption in service.) Less ideally, but still an improvement, special tools can be developed to allow humans to address the problem more quickly.

     As long as life continues, certain events will continue to happen. The world will rotate and the sun will appear over the horizon. Food will be eaten and the aftermath will need to be taken care of. Networks and services will have hiccups. And it's all to the good because it is an indication that life IS continuing.

Multitasking: Can humans really do it?

 

     Let's get more done! Why aren't you multitasking? Have these words ever been said to you? Or have you said them to yourself or others? The idea of multitasking can be very attractive. If you're doing more than one thing at a time then surely you can accomplish more. Right?

     From a computer science point of view -- which is where the concept originated -- multitasking can be a function of the operating system (the software which allows the processor/computer to do different types of programs and activity). Not all operating systems support multitasking but most, in widespread use, do. The operating system is the primary task being run by the processor.

     With a single processor (the hardware which executes the instructions), only one task can be done at any time. Multitasking is the process of the operating system switching between tasks -- preferably at a point where a task can do no more useful work until some other event happens. The switching between tasks is called a "context switch" because the operating system will save/store all necessary information for the original task to continue (later) before starting another task (restoring the information which it stored when last suspended). The more tasks in the list, and the more often they are switched, the greater will be the percentage of overhead created by context switching. It is possible to get to a point where the processor/computer does almost no useful work if it has too many tasks and swaps too often -- this is called "thrashing".

     Humans can, of course, act as a "processor" but they are certainly not computers. Humans can attempt to multitask -- but they have the same limitations of computers -- and more.

     First, as is true for computers, humans can only do a single task at a time. Second, humans also have to do "context switching" to move from one task (which is not yet complete) to another -- but human context switching is much less efficient, and prone to error, than that for a computer. Third, a computer can move between many different tasks and still remain useful -- a human will likely start losing task contexts and forget tasks or not be able to continue them efficiently.

     Today, I was working on a task at the computer -- and I had some bread toasting in the toaster oven. I got absorbed in the task at the computer and, after a while, smelled something burning. Instead of doing two separate tasks properly, one of the tasks ended up with incinerated toast which had to be thrown out (and the windows opened and fan turned on).

     I could have set an alarm to go and check the toast (but I didn't). For an operating system, an alarm is an interrupt event. Alarms may be associated with an event, an outside input, time, or other measurable event. This can allow one task to continue (but not using the processor) unmonitored (like having a sprinkler within a watering system disperse water) while other tasks are done. The interrupt may be set according to a timer, telling the system to turn off the water after a period of time.

     Note that these comments are for a single processor. When there are multiple processors, then "parallel processing" can be done -- which is similar to having a team assigned to the problem and the pursuant needs to coordinate the work between team members. Each processor, or member, can attempt multitasking but humans in teams cannot do multitasking any better than individually.

     Multitasking makes sense for a computer but it does not work well for humans and the limit for the number of possible tasks for a human to switch between is reached very quickly.

The Economics of the Road Runner: Acme is the winner

 

     As a child (and as an adult), I watched a cartoon about the Coyote and the Road Runner. The "plot" in each cartoon is for the coyote to catch the road runner in order to eat it. In spite of the overt physical violence, no longterm harm is done to either of the characters (note, there are books, videos, and probably podcasts concerning the "Physics of Looney Tunes" which do NOT follow conventional laws of physics) and the creativity and persistence are amazing. I don't know how widely these US cartoons have been distributed. They were created for Looney Tunes (Warner Brothers) and are something that I can watch over and over.

     All of the traps and schemings appeal to the technical person in me. But, of late, I cannot get it out of my head about the economics of the Coyote and the Road Runner. We have a coyote wanting to eat a road runner. An average road runner (the one in the cartoons is quite a bit larger) is about ten ounces (about 283 grams). The edible portion of the road runner is probably no more than half of that -- 5 ounces (140 grams). Baluga caviar is about $500/ounce. So, if road runner meat is as expensive as the most expensive caviar, it would be about $2500. (Much more likely, it would be about the same as alligator meat -- $1.25 per ounce -- but we're giving an extreme example here.)

     In many of the cartoons, the coyote purchases massive amounts of tools, supplies, and equipment (from the Acme Manufacturing company). For an average episode, I would make a guesstimate of maybe $15,000 of merchandise. (Some episodes are all ingenuity or low-tech stuff -- but we're talking about an average episode.) So, here is the coyote -- who has access to delivery services and mail-order/online ordering -- paying $15,000 to catch $2500 worth of meat. (And he caught the road runner only once -- and then couldn't eat it.)

     So, besides being something to think about forever, what about it? Who cares? It's a cartoon.

     Ah, but businesses and individuals do this all of the time. For businesses and freelancing individuals (who can fruitfully use their time for other things) there is a cost to time and effort coming up with solutions. At Bell Labs, we were warned on a regular basis to not fall into the NIH (Not Invented Here) trap. If I have five people working two weeks on a problem that can be purchased from someone else, is it a bargain or do I have a set of coyotes trying to catch a road runner? Maybe yes, maybe no. Does your particular "road runner" do just what you want it to or will you need to adjust the product, or the infrastructure which would use it? If so, how much? Do you have something else productive for your cast of coyotes to do (if not, you have some other serious things to think about within your business)?

     Sometimes, in order to get just what you require (or, if usable multiple times, to provide longterm economy) it is worthwhile to do it yourself. But count your costs. Especially the costs that aren't obvious. If you pay money for things, that is obvious. If it takes you eight hours to do something, that cost isn't obvious. If it causes you great stress, that adds to the "cost". If you enjoy doing it, that lessens the "cost". The balance of costs versus value (as is true for many things in life) is not always easy to ascertain.

"Quiet quitting" versus work/life balance

 

     As best as I've been able to interpret, the newly popular term "quiet quitting" is a phrase used to indicate that a person has reached the border of how much time and energy they are willing to put into their paid work and where they feel they need to put the time and energy into keeping their families, and themselves, healthy and productive.

     Of course, that is NOT what the term "quiet quitting" calls to mind. I don't know WHO in the world comes up with these meme labels but whoever picked the term appears to be quite happy with the pre-pandemic US (and some other global cultures) status quo of putting in as much time and energy as work appears to "require". Such places the control over work/life boundaries firmly in the hands of management. From some points of view, that seems reasonable for a business.

     However, there have been MANY studies that indicate that this approach is counter-productive. Work efficiency declines, and the number of need-to-recover-from mistakes increases, as a person pushes themselves beyond what they can support. The current exploration of the 4-day work week is one approach to keeping employees productive. There are other methods.

     Within Europe, there are many limits placed on work environment/home boundaries. A strict number of hours that can be worked (few, if any, after hours calls and work assignments). A reasonable amount of vacation allocated per employee which they are required to take. Maternity/paternity leaves. Und so weiter (and so forth). These are methods of legislating work/life boundaries.

     The scary part, for some, of "quiet quitting" (and the reason it is not called "life balance maintenance") is that it moves the control over maintenance of work/life allocation to the hands of the employees. It is true that many employees are not used to this control. In many cases, it might have a similar effect as "unlimited PTO" does -- when people take almost NO paid time off -- not even as many days as they would have been allotted within a fixed vacation benefit. In others, they may not find themselves with adequate self-motivation to do the amount of work expected on their work assignments.

     I will stop using the term "q q" -- and move over to "life balance maintenance" (which I consider to be a better description). Achieving this IS a challenge for the employee and the company. It requires good communication conduits and awareness of each person's situation. There will be times when the business seriously needs an extra push of effort from its peoples -- but it should not become an expected way of life. If the communication lines are open and there is respect in all directions, then almost every employee (if at all possible within their circumstances) will put in extra effort. For most employees, it is harder for them to recognize that they are reaching diminishing returns than to accept another short night's sleep and missed ballgame.

Three Wishes: The Djinn out of the bottle

 

     I don't know how universal of a practice it may be but, when I was growing up, at some time or other the question would come up "if you had three wishes, what would you wish?" Answers would vary tremendously. Someone would point out how many stories have the granter of wishes (usually a Djinn, or Genie -- sometimes Lucifer, depending on whether it was a morality tale) finding the loopholes within a wish. Using that loophole, the granter could often make the wish be a terrible thing to obtain.

     Within US culture, one story that has been repeated in prose and video is that of "The Devil and Daniel Webster" (by Stephen Vincent Binet). A frustrated, desperate man makes a deal with the devil exchanging his soul for current worldly success. As life continues, he finds that that material success does not bring the joy he had expected and wants to leave life with his soul. Daniel Webster, a New England politician and statesperson known for his oratory was begged to plead his case before a jury consisting of others that the devil had once swindled.

     In the above example, a wish was made (in exchange for something) and it was found to not be a wise wish. There are other examples of wishes twisted by the granter. Midas' wish for "The Golden Touch" left him in a situation where he could no longer pick up food to eat as the food would become gold and inedible.

     In the story "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain, the emphasis is on the double-sided aspect of wishes. If I wish for success am I also wishing for failure for another? If I ask for rain for my crops, is this water being taken from someone else who may experience drought? A wise, careful, wish would come up with a win-win response -- but how many of us have that wisdom? Especially if the granter is deliberately trying to twist the wish?

     The recipient of the wish also may try to get around the limitation on wishes. Such as having "I wish for an infinite number of wishes" as the first wish. That's always disallowed. There may be other restrictions. Some are good restrictions. Can't wish for anyone's death, for example. Some may appear to be unreasonable restrictions. But, as is true of any granter of wishes and rewards, the rules are defined by the granter.

     Wishes are not the same as plans. A wish requires a granter. A plan may include the actions of others but it is moved forward by the efforts of the person who wants the results of the plan. If you "wish" something will happen, you are saying that it is up to someone, or something, else to make it come true. If you "wish upon a star" then, somehow, that star will bring about the result that you want.

     Through the years, I have contemplated on what my three wishes would be. Have you done something similar? About ten years ago, I decided upon a wish (first, or only) that might work. I doubt I'll ever get the opportunity to find out. Meanwhile, I can work on plans.

Polling: Problems and attractions

 

     I cannot claim that I have recent information but, about 30 years ago, when I was studying Japanese culture -- trying to decide to make the leap and start learning Japanese (one of my favorite Aunts was born in Japan and that has always attracted me to the country and its people) -- I came across an interesting tidbit. It seems that, at least at that time, minutely detailed polls were conducted with people. Things like "do you brush your upper teeth first or your lower teeth first?" or "Do you sleep on the left side of the bed or the right side of the bed?" Many readers would go to the poll results of previous polls before checking out the rest of the paper. It is not unlike enjoying the horoscopes first, or the crosswords, or the comic page of a newspaper (back when printed media held a primary position). The difference was the importance placed. It mattered to the readers as to what the answer was. Were they doing it "right"? In Japanese culture, the group comes first.

     Within the US, and many countries, polls are associated with political matters. Popularity, or unpopularity, of politicians. Popularity, or unpopularity of issues and possible approaches to those issues. It is not unusual for the polls to "say" one thing in an election and, following the election, have the results vary substantially from what the polls forecast.

     For political candidates, the questions on the poll are fairly direct and simple. Do you, or do you not, favor Politician X. In the case of issues, however, it is much like a general survey. How well are the questions phrased? Are there assumptions that lie behind the question. "Do you think that we are doing the correct response to situation A?" This question assumes that situation A is as stated. If situation A is different from that which is stated then the entire question becomes invalid. Given Situation Z do you prefer option G, H, J, or K? What happens if Situation Z is unlikely (or impossible)? What if you don't like G, H, J, OR K? Once again, any results from the poll question becomes unusable.

     Let's assume that the question is either simple and straight-forward OR it is formulated in such a manner such that the situation is true and the possible solutions cover the possibilities. What is the next problem in getting good results from a poll (or survey)? Audience. A survey, or poll, is supposed to be getting samples of answers from a small audience that can be applied to a much larger population.

     So, is the sample representative of the larger population? It doesn't have to be representative for ALL people. If the poll/survey concerns something related to college students, then it has to represent all college students. If it concerns only homemanagers, then it only has to represent all who do the multiple-job position of a homemanager. But the sample must be an accurate representation of the population. If you multiply the sample by a hundred, thousand, or a million then the sample should expand out into a close copy of the full population. What are possible problems:

• Getting in touch with a representative population. Once upon a time, this could be done via door-to-door polling or telephone polling. Not anymore. The population connects with the rest of the world via many different potential avenues. And, by leaving out all of the people who communicate only via SMS, you may no longer be representative. Or by leaving out all of the people who communicate only via a particular social app, or game chat conduit. Not only does this make it much harder to communicate with your representative group but it makes the poll/survey much more complicated, and expensive, to do correctly.
  
  
• Getting people to respond. Our landline rings 10 times a day. We only answer if we recognize the caller (and occasionally that is spoofed and the caller is someone unknown). Some days, we never answer the phone. A message can be left -- but usually they do not leave a message. The same situation exists in other types of connections. Even if you locate the appropriate people, they have to be willing to respond.
  
  
• Will they give a truthful answer? For some topics and questions, the respondent won't want to tell you what they really feel. They feel that it is the "incorrect" answer and may be bashful, or ashamed, to tell you. But, when they have anonymity, they will answer as they really feel. Closed, anonymous, survey answers can avoid this -- if they are trusted to remain anonymous -- but that makes the survey/poll more complicated, and expensive, once again.

     More than ever, polling is harder to do accurately. So, how much faith should be placed in a poll? Given the lack of an alternative, they may be better than nothing but don't expect them to be fully accurate. In addition, people like to be "part of the winning team" and, if they think an answer is more popular and acceptable, they may choose answers based on what they think is the "winner". Whether they will continue to support that opinion is unknown.

     Polls are meant to be an indication of the thoughts of a larger population. But improper use of polling methods can actually be used to influence the thoughts of the larger population. In a parallel sense with the group mindset of the polling of the Japanese population as mentioned at the beginning of this blog, the poll results can be used as indicators to the larger population as to what they "should" think. Thus, polling can work both directions. The sample can reflect the opinions of the larger population and the larger population may allow the smaller sample to indicate the opinions that they should have.

     Be careful with the interpretations of poll results and carefully examine the questions and answers.

A Place for Everything and Everything in its Place

 

     "A place for everything and everything in its place." An old homily that gives advice as to how to organize within one's life. But, do we often have a place for everything? And IS everything in its place?

     Let's suppose that we are wonderfully organized and we have a place for everything and everything is in its place. what are the benefits of that? Presumably, it will be easy and efficient to find things that we want to retrieve. It will also be easy to know just where something should be put after we have finished using it. Note that this is the ideal of this situation. Having a place for everything is of no use if people do not put things into those places. Around my household, we end up repurchasing things quite (much too) often because things are NOT put back into the place where they are expected to be found.

     And, on the other hand, if there IS a place for everything and the item is not where it should be -- then that organization is useless. "A place for everything and everything in its place" gives a structure that can help in organization, retrieval, and storage -- but the structure has to be actively used and maintained to be of use. Every six months, or so, I organize our pantry. I group canned vegetables together, canned fruits together, sauces, surplus "backup" supplies, and other stuff grouped together. I also examine "use by" dates and discard those items (usually not zero) that have expired and put older items towards the front to be used first. Obviously, we do not all make use of the structure consistently -- otherwise I would not be re-organizing every six months.

     So, the structure is helpful -- but only if consistently used. But what if we are unable to create this structure? "A place for everything." Having extra space should not hurt as long as it is not used in such a way that finding things becomes more difficult. But most of us do not have enough space for everything. There cannot be "a place for everything". The best we can do is "a pile for groups of related things" from which we must sort when we try to retrieve. This situation is improved by one of two methods: obtain more space or reduce the amount of stuff we have. In the US, obtaining more space ("upsizing") is the direction most often approached. Note that this sometimes means off-site storage facilities.

     Reducing stuff -- following a simplification, or minimalist, route -- is becoming more popular but fights against the general culture. There are people who are able to help with this. Since the stuff is not theirs, there is no emotional attachment and elimination of excess, unused, things is much easier. But the final decision as to what is to stay or go is still yours and you have to be willing to make such decisions.

     Once the goal of having the proper amount of space has been achieved, the next step is organization so that things can be placed, and retrieved, easily and quickly. Once again, there are people who are fantastic at organizing and can help you with this task.

     With a goal of downsizing into a smaller, single-level, retirement domicile in the near future, we are working to reduce, reduce, reduce. It is not easy. Over the course of a lifetime, memories become attached to things. Elimination of things is kind-of-easy. elimination of memories (or triggers of memories) is much more difficult.

Power and responsibility: they need to go hand in hand

 

     "With great power comes great responsibility". I suspect there aren't a lot of people (globally) who have not seen, or heard, that phrase. It did not originate with Spider-Man, of course, but the character has certainly made it much more widely known.

     So many plots in books, especially spy or science fiction genre books, seem to have the antagonist wanting to "take over the world". This makes sense to me only from a fragmented perspective. If you divide the power from the responsibility -- power without responsibility -- then I can see it as a goal of the evil villain. The world, and all its people and contents, as personal playthings to do whatever they want to do. The thought sends shivers up my spine. And there have been such people in history although they have never had the global power that they might have sought.

     But power WITH responsibility? It is not surprising to me that, upon looking at the photographs of most US Presidents before and after their time in office, there is a lot more grey hair, a lot more wrinkles, a lot more mileage.

     Power paired with responsibility varies a lot of course -- in depth and breadth. If I am in charge of taking care of a paraplegic then the great reliance grants power and, in turn, enormous responsibility. If I am in charge of the wellbeing of a thousand children at a school, I have less power per individual as they each continue to have a degree of power in themselves but the aggregate power and responsibility is considerable.

     That responsibility enforces its own requirements. When my business partner and I started our company, we sometimes had cash flow problems. As corporate leaders, when that happened, our paychecks disappeared so that we could continue to pay bills and send out paychecks to our people. I was lucky that, at the time, I was single and without others to depend upon me. Ramen noodles are easier to spread out over a month with one person than when there are others, used to a more nutritionally rounded meal, who depend upon you.

     But, it is a balancing act. We never reached the point where dire divisions of cash flow were required but we did have to look at the future and, at one point, had to layoff some of our very knowledgeable, experienced, staff. Otherwise, the projected future cash flow would have forced much more stringent needs upon us. If our savings had hit such a low that my business partner and I could no longer have survived without income, it would have been necessary to reduce everyone's paycheck such that we could have participated in that reduced income.

     The point is that we were responsible to, and for, all of the people within the company and choices always had to have their needs in mind at all times. Luckily, we never went public or we would also have had the needs of the stockholders in mind also.

     I spoke of breadth and depth. Superman (in one version within the DC mulitverse) had the power to destroy a planet. NOT destroying planets was one aspect of responsibility but there was no way to leverage that power to be able to take care of eight billion individuals. He had one aspect of depth of power but did not have the breadth of power for the needs of all of the living creatures.

     With great power should come great responsibility. When it doesn't, it is a severe problem. Power comes in many forms and many degrees but it should align with appropriate responsibilities.

Professional: A shifting definition for a shifting world

 

     I have heard the word "professional" many times in the course of my career. In general, if a person said that someone's (perhaps mine) something was "unprofessional" it meant that they did not approve. The root of disapproval was often based upon what they, in their turn, had been told as they had progressed within their career. It was "unprofessional" because they had been told it was "unprofessional".

     Within the past, this has covered a lot of areas. It was unprofessional for women to wear comfortable shoes or to wear pants. It was unprofessional for men to have facial hair or any hair styles that were not rooted in the 1920s. Visible tattoos were certainly "no-nos". It was unprofessional for people to have natural hair -- only certain styles were acceptable. Sometimes it extended past the work hours such as restrictions on the behavior of teachers or bank workers on weekends or in the evenings. Upon starting our company, my friend and colleague informed me that my stainless-steel tooth crown was "unprofessional" and insisted I replace it with a more natural looking porcelain crown.

     The word has been used very much like "Nyet kulturney" (uncultured) within Russian society.

     So, what is professional? In appearance, at least?

     First, of course, is clothing and behavior related to one's actual profession. A carpenter or plumber has their tool belt. A costumed vigilante (usually the non-superhero type) may need their utility belt. A tailor may have their pins and needles and measuring tapes poking out of pockets. Peculiarly (at least, to me) the word professional is often least used within the context of true professional needs.

     A second, more universal, usage is that of establishing a customer-supplier relationship. Related to "dress for success", the clothing is meant to show a financial stability, a steadfastness, a reliability to the customer. This often works well within a social structure or income band. It does not work as well between income bands as the same difference in appearance that indicates stability in one environment may indicate a power relationship, not to be trusted, in another.

     The third area is use as a uniform. The dress, or appearance, has nothing directly to do with the profession. However, it is used as a symbol of recognition. Such as the white coat or scrub clothes for a doctor. Or the pants, clothes, and badge of a person enforcing regulations and laws. A firefighter may have special clothing appropriate for their firefighting needs -- AND a uniform that is worn during periods they are not actively performing their duties. Popular media often make use of this to indicate how easily a person can "appear" to be of a group by donning the apparel.

     Internal cultural acceptance is the final region. This is the most varied. To be a "member of the group" is usually quite valued. This varies a lot and is shifting a lot with hybrid/remote work. The strong need to express individual circumstances and desires coexists with the desire to be part of the group.

     The word "professional" can also be applied to behavior. This is even more difficult to define precisely. It includes a lot of attributes -- clean, reliable, trustworthy, "good" behavior, attitude, competence, courteous, putting customers' needs/desires first, accountability, hardworking, and others. Most such attributes are very subjective and if a specific attribute is considered to be of importance in evaluation, I would suggest using such directly rather than enclose it within the umbrella of "professional".

     

How's it going? Social interaction levels

 

     You walk along the street and you see someone you know to a certain extent. Enough to recognize their face and name and, perhaps, a couple of things about them. You say "how's it going?" but proceed along the street before listening to any reply, if any. Or, perhaps, being a bit more socially aware, you say "hello". They respond -- not expecting a reply either -- and you have created the first level of social interactions. You have acknowledged the existence of the other.

     This is an important aspect of society. When there is no acknowledgement of another, it is the equivalent of the punishment of "shunning".  Some see shunning as a "social death sentence". You don't exist, you are not part of the rest of the world. You might as well not be present. There is sometimes an imbalance where one person is considered "more important" than another -- for whatever reason, income, social class, caste, outward body shape/size/color/height. But, as long as acknowledgement happens, all are still connected as part of the society.

     A danger sign exists when a person does not recognize another at all. It might be a "more important" person ignoring a "less important" person but lack of acknowledgement breaks societal links. That person should never be allocated more influence over others as they have indicated lack of social ability.

     Breaking the social acknowledgement links can be done on purpose -- beyond the social penalty of "shunning". It is done during wartime. It is done during periods of xenophobia when the group becomes fearful of others. If a person is not acknowledged, they are no longer a person and anything can be done with, or to, them without remorse.

     A middle level of social interaction works within the societal system that exists. As such, it will vary from culture to culture around the world. It centers on expectations and responsibilities. Often it is associated with social levels -- whether from lineage, income, or subgroup. Along with acknowledgement comes, often implicitly, expectations of how interactions will take place and how the process goes. Sometimes it is very formal and "codified" into the general society.

     A higher level of social interaction involves full acknowledgement of the existence and worth of the other. A "namaste" between two. The acknowledgement is the base, the desire for understanding is much higher. In this case, "how are you?' expects, and receives, an answer and potentially a discussion.

     Acknowledgement, interaction, understanding. A path forward.

Gender equality: A built-in bias

 

     Within the U.S. and in many countries of the world, women make less money than men for the same work, have less mobility, and less chance of advancement. At the same time, they often have to work harder and do a better job in order to be perceived as doing as well as men. Many, probably most, agree that this situation is not a fair one nor is it a productive one. Yet, except for a couple of valiant countries which have made the situation a top issue, little progress is made from year to year.

     I believe that this is all part of traditional, and expected, gender roles. It is generally understood that most families can no longer financially support themselves on one paycheck -- yet the woman's paycheck, and career, is often the one sacrificed for children, family, and emergency needs. Managers expect that, within a couple, the woman will be the one who will have to push aside work in order to take care of children or handle other family requirements. Currently, although often true, it is not always the case. Yet, the expectation continues to exist. This carries over to evaluations. If I have the expectation that one person is not going to be always accessible and always able to perform their work duties and I have the expectation that another person IS going to be always accessible and able to perform -- then who will get the most visible assignments? Who will be considered for promotions first?

     Note that this perception is often not true (but IS true more often than might be desired) -- but the bias remains and affects evaluation, mobility, and treatment. So, even before possible work disruption actually happen, the perception is already working against the woman.

     Changes to society take a while and perception changes even more slowly than statistics. But a good approach to reducing, and someday eliminating, the perceptional bias is to take up the reins for full support of the family.

     Current medicine leaves no choice but for a child to be borne by a woman. But, beyond that, there are many things that can be done to even the responsibilities and perceived responsibilities. Parental care -- to be able to be taken by women AND men -- is an important item. Safe, affordable, affirming childcare needs to be generally available. Flexible hours, and necessary sick and emergency time, needs to be available for all.

     Changing the laws and benefits are not sufficient, of course. If parental leave is available for both parents and only women use it -- it will NOT improve perception (in fact, it validates it). If flexible hours and necessary sick and emergency time is available to all but only the women use it, or use it much more often than men, it will NOT improve perception.

     In order to reduce gender bias, laws and benefits must be in place for all employees. With that as a foundation, society then must make active use of such so that all can be perceived with the same needs and reliabilities. The existence of the support must be present and then women AND men must make use of them in order for biases and assumptions to slowly disappear.

Work Ethic versus Burnout

 

     I grew up in a matriarchal household with my mother having lived her childhood through the Great Depression. Under such conditions, all was used until it was dust, all food disappeared from plates, you got something new only if there was nothing that could be reused or improvised, and you continued to work until there was no more work to do. When under economic depression conditions (personal or societal), it was a very reasonable, rational, approach to life. They did not want my generation to have to go through it -- and I don't want my children to have to go through it. But, it was an overwhelming factor within the environment of my childhood.

     We did not leave the table until our plates were clean. But we did not choose our portion sizes. Sometimes, at our two or three times a year restaurant visits, my mother didn't want to finish her meal -- so I was expected to finish hers in addition to mine. Unsurprisingly, I had weight issues and continue to fight the feeling that I MUST clean the plate. I have a slogan I have devised -- "waste or waist". If one chooses their portion size (or are willing to have leftovers/"doggy bags") then requiring a clean plate can be reasonable. If the portion size is not personally chosen and it is not feasible to take it away (such as on trips) then the clean plate mentality can be quite detrimental to health. This completion mentality also applied to daily work.

     My mother was always working. If she was on a paid job, she worked from the time she clocked in until she clocked out -- only taking legally required breaks. As the years passed (and her health declined, in addition) she could allow herself to rest at home -- but only after all other work items were done (dusting, vacuuming, polishing, washing, straightening, putting away, ...) But, during my childhood, she was always doing. If she finished one set of required duties, she would start something else. It effected a considerable aversion to home canning for me -- it's great if you need it or like doing it but if it is a matter of keeping busy then, perhaps, it isn't quite as wonderful.

     Like a leaf in a storm, I was part of my mother's continuous travail. In general, that was good for me as I learned to search for what needed to be done -- and to do it. (Though, if you look at a previous blog, you will see this has some tiresome side-effects). Luckily, studying and reading were considered to be working and, thus, I did very well in school as well as helped clean the house and yard daily.

    My mother did not suffer from burnout as far as I know. I doubt that she had ever heard of the word. Nor had her parents or grandparents. But she had little energy left to do anything with my brother or myself. She had little time, or energy, to pursue any interests she might have had for herself. She tried to get her GED three times and, each time, was diverted away from her goal.

     When you are cleaning a house or doing a specific physical task, there is an end (unless you are totally unable to accept less than perfection). When you are doing many non-physical tasks for yourself, or a company, there is no ending. It is always possible to contact one more potential customer, work on one more program function, connect up with one more person, (write one more blog).

     So, we end up with ways to approach work ethics and burnout (which, as you probably already noticed, applies to other activities such as eating). I would suggest that a work ethic is doing the work that needs to be done. But burnout happens when no limit is set -- no ending. Physical activities often have a built-in limit. Non-physical activities rarely do. If you hit a burnout, there is no energy left for anything else and, eventually, no energy left to do that "core" set of activities you consider most important. Even more, there is no energy left to prepare oneself for the future -- and that hurts everyone.

     In work, in eating, and, in many other aspects of our lives, limits are healthy and necessary.

FIrst-time work: hurdles and quandries

 

     There is always a first time to get a paid job. There are first times for everything -- including the first breath we take after we are born. But getting a paid position is one of those types of firsts that are part of the ritual of becoming self-supporting.

     There are two parts of this -- finding a no-experience-needed first-time position and succeeding in obtaining such.

     For many companies, a degree (possibly Associate degree, more likely Bachelor's or above (or the non-USA equivalents)) is considered "paper experience". Some companies presently are starting to trade off paper experience with real-life experience. But real-life experience is rare to have that directly pertain to the skills/experience desired within a company if you are trying to find your first paid position. Sometimes, volunteer work is applicable.

     There are places that are considered to be nests for starting paid work. How many people in high positions talk about their first jobs at McDonald's? Or as a bagger in a grocery store? Not many restaurants still wash dishes by hand -- but, once upon a dark moon, that used to be a good first time situation. My first paid position was as a neighborhood lawnmowing person (an early, very limited, entrepreneurship) followed by newspaper deliverer (on foot).

     These jobs, associated with companies, have a couple of characteristics. First, there was a lot of turnover -- openings came up fairly frequently and if you could pass some basic requirements (cleanliness, polite demeanor, etc.) you could usually eventually get a job at one (perhaps not your first choice). Second, the pay was minimal -- in the past it was livable, in the present you had better still have other financial support.

     But how about the positions that are considered long-term career potential?  (This doesn't mean that you cannot have a long-term career at McDonald's.) First, those companies have to HAVE positions open for people with no experience. It might be in the "mailroom" (in electronic times, not as frequent) or janitorial areas -- but unless there is internal mobility that is not a good first step. But there may not be any non-experienced positions for the company. In that case, get your first experience at a different company where you can develop experiences that are relevant for the companies wherein you would prefer to work.

     For the second part -- finding and succeeding in obtaining an entry-level position -- there are different gauntlets to be run depending on salary/career/social ranking. At the lowest rankings (I'm not going to list them because the titles/positions are subjective -- let's just define them as low money with low potential advancement), qualifying doesn't apply much but finding, and being allowed to apply, becomes a matter of networking and luck. In the past, it was a matter of walking to each opening that was published in the classified section of the newspaper. Now, it is primarily word-of-mouth and potentially via social job boards. But luck (which I defined, and explored, in a recent blog) plays a large role.

     For a middle-rung position (living wage with some potential for advancement or mobility),  old-style searches still used the classified section of newspapers but job bureaus (places where you sign up to have your resume available for distribution or job matching) were frequently used. Once again, classifieds rarely apply anymore and social networking has become a much more important areas of discovery. (Job bureaus are still used.)

     On the high-rung side (moderately high initial salary with large potential in salary, position, and social ranking), there are still some entry-level positions. But, as I mentioned in a prior blog, there are many companies that try to demand experience for initial, first-position, jobs and many companies that require specific knowledge for these positions -- something that is truly unreasonable.

     High-rung positions are found via direct networking or via a symbiosis of recruiters and social networking. A recruiter for such positions might receive, or need to examine, 500 potential resumes in a day. They cannot spend much more than a couple of hours looking at them as they have other duties they need to do each day. 500 resumes in 150 minutes means there is an average of 18 seconds to be spent, ON AVERAGE, per resume. I am a moderately fast reader (I can read faster but with less retention/comprehension) at about 45 words in 18 seconds. This means that, on average, the recruiter will read the first four sentences of your resume. IF something in those first four sentences (or 18 seconds of scattered keywords that catch their eye during scanning) attracts their attention then you may win more time for examination.

     Eighteen seconds is not much time. The conclusion is to make those words count and focus on the beginning of the resume. So, if you don't have much/any experience to relate, how do you make those 45 words count in your favor? Job-relevant ACTION concluded with job-relevant RESULT. Or, job posting KEYWORD matched within relevant/reliable/consistent context. 

     Since you don't have (by definition within this blog) the specific experience that you hope to gain as you do the job, your action/results pairs will be associated with qualities that indicate you can succeed in gaining the knowledge needed to do the job well. Such might be aspects of focus, inventiveness, communication capabilities, organization, endurance, leadership, or other character-related aspect that can be applied to perform well in the position. They may also be associated with volunteer skill-related aspects such as pamphleting, programming, selling cookies at a table, or such.

     A primary goal is to reduce, or eliminate, the factor of luck. This requires active networking and focus (both in application and tailoring per position). May the force be with you.

The Turing Test: Not enough?

 

     Of late, there have been declarations of Artificial Intelligence (AI) becoming sentient. And even louder protestations that it isn't true. Within computer science, there has been an assumption that this can be evaluated by use of what is called "The Turing Test". Created by Alan Turing, a British mathematician and considered to be a founding person in AI, in 1950 -- it was initially called an imitation test. The idea was that if you were unable to distinguish the conversation of a program from the conversation of a person the program could be considered sentient.

     This was in 1950. People conversed on a regular basis in 1950. The criteria of being able to distinguish a person from a program, by use of analysis of conversation, seemed reasonable. Forward the clock to 2022 and that criteria no longer seems to be sufficient. For those who say that AI has reached the criteria set out by Alan Turing -- they are probably correct. There are programs that speak language BETTER than an average person in that language. According to the Turing test, they are sapient. But, according to our current experiences of programs, machine learning, and AI -- it seems that it would be hard to consider them to have had a passing grade for sentiency.

     Which leaves us to the question, once again, of what is sentience? Some of the recent declarations indicate the appearance of emotions, desires. Are these what distinguish sentiency from mechanical responses? Of course, one can move to the religious, spiritual, and theological and say that what we are searching for is a soul. But, if it is a matter of a soul then we are in even worse shape for evaluation. There is no consensus as to what a soul is. If it does exist, where does it reside? If it does exist, is it immortal or connected to something associated with a living mind and only in existence as long as that mind and body exist?

     Science fiction and fantasy -- those genres of "what if" -- have approached such a subject for many decades. But general agreement, even less the matter of consensus, is nowhere to be found.

     If we use the criteria of a desire for survival and a desire for progeny then the state of AI has not been achieved. But, if those are to be criteria, should a goal of reaching such be striven for? Mary Shelley's Frankenstein reflects many matters: human hubris, the difficulty of accepting others, fear of the stranger (xenophobia). But, as seen in the dystopia of the Terminator series, a desire for survival and progeny coordinated with a superiority in speed and execution may prove to be an ultimate competitor to the human species.

     So, let's move back to the start. If we use the Turing Test, alone, as a criterion for sentiency -- we are probably there. If that is not sufficient, what qualities should be measured -- and how should they be measured? And, in some situations, perhaps creating that which meets such criteria may be something that would be a mistake to achieve?

The Value of Repetition

 

     I have taken a number of Pimsleur® language training courses. The Pimsleur method is a system of delayed reinforcement of vocabulary (and some grammar) that has been used within the US Foreign Service departments for rapid language acquisition. The idea is that a word is introduced and the learner must repeat it -- perhaps within a phrase. Then, a short time later the word is presented again. And then after quite a bit longer (maybe 10 or 15 minutes) it is presented again. Finally, the word is made part of subsequent lessons for a while -- while performing the same process with new words such that each word is at a different portion of the language acquisition series.

     This works -- or the theory of it works -- because humans have both short-term and long-term memories and the ways that information is stored has different processes. These are chemical and neurological. These procedures aid the transfer from short-term to long-term memory.

     But repetition is also part of the cycle of humankind's works. Some are associated with mental processes and some with physical. Newsdesks at media centers have a circular file where a certain topic may be flagged for a new article (perhaps very similar to the last -- or perhaps incorporating new information) about a topic to be created and presented every so often. Perhaps once every five years. Perhaps annually -- especially if it pertains to an annual event (Christmas, 4th of July, Bastille Day, Thanksgiving, Boxing Day, spring planting, ...) Some might remember the previous article, or articles, on the subject but many more will not. Thus, it is useful.

     There is, of course, unnecessary repetition. I find that I tell people certain stories, or talk about certain topics, more often than they would prefer to hear. It isn't that I am trying to pester them -- I just don't know to whom I have already relayed the stories. If you are at the brunt of such, try to be patient as it is likely to happen with you as you age and there are more and more people within your life.

     There is also repetition of physical items. A city manager will have a map, or maps (nowadays probably digital), of the road systems or water systems or sewage systems that provide the lifelines of the community. Certain roads, and routes, will be flagged to be repaved every so often. Presumably, more heavily used roads are repaved more often. Less heavily used roads are repaved less often. Some roads, and routes, are not on any systematic cycle of repaving. They are paved only after a certain amount of active complaints or if people, who have the ear of someone important in the local government, complain. It is unfortunate, but true, that roads through areas of less income often fall into this latter category.

     The same can be done for water pipes or sewage lines -- but, because wear and damage is usually not obvious to detect, they typically happen only after some incident makes it necessary. That is why they tear up a road recently repaved in order to do water pipe renewal or repair. They aren't quite as unknowing as they appear -- they just value cost postponement over avoidance of undoing recent efforts.

     Another area of repetition is that of fashion. Fashion is a supplemental design factor to most items -- clothing, appliances, home decoration, etc. As such, the choices do not usually affect the functionality of the items -- although it is often true that fashion will value form, or appearance, over practicality. That avocado green appliance that you had in the 1960s may have a turn again at some point in the future. Will the leisure suits of the 1970s make another appearance? What about those 1940s shoulder pads in women's jackets and blouses? Who knows? But fashion designers certainly are willing to reuse something that was once popular.

     There is also something which might be considered repetition but might better be considered a premature attempt at introduction. Apple's Newton® of 1993 might not have been of great significance but the iPad® of 2010 certainly has been.

     Even these blogs have topics that occur more than once. I have been writing them for 16 years. Even if I do a search through my blogs,  the keywords may not be the same for the same general area. But, like the case with the news media, some topics may also be worthwhile to present every once in a while as they are topics which persist and for which new audiences may benefit. (Or perhaps I am just rationalizing my desire to talk about them.)

     Repetition can serve various purposes. Some are annoying. Some commercial. And some very practical.

Interviewing: Feedback, Exchanges, and Lack of Assumptions

 

     I haven't interviewed a lot in my life in spite of a fairly long, varied, career. Most of the jobs that I have had are situations where they have been coming after me. First post-college job was primarily based on academics. Later jobs were based on direct interactions such that they knew I was well-qualified before they even considered me for a position.

     But, that doesn't mean that I haven't ever had interviews. I have had more interviews that I would consider "bad" than those considered "good". Much of the aspects of "bad" interviews have been assumptions on my part. If something is important to the interviewer, I expect them to ask questions about it such that I can answer. If aspects are not well flushed out, I expect further questions.

     Such is an ideal world. Welcome to the real world.

     Once, I was in an interview when they asked me something that showed total ignorance of the subject about which they were asking the question. What should I do? It is doubtful that the interviewer wanted to be told that they didn't know what they were doing. Yet, an answer must be given -- preferably one that would be satisfactory to the interviewer. In my past history, I choked. I just didn't know how to answer a nonsense question. Perhaps it was a deliberate nonsense question to see how I would deal with it?

     In another situation, I was applying for a technical/programming position within a large company. I passed the preliminary interviews via phone and written tests. On to an in-person interview. Remember, I was applying for a technical/programming position. When I got to the interview, I found that I was being interviewed for a marketing position. The interviewer looked at my resume and didn't know what to ask me -- nor did I know what to ask them. I had some marketing experience (primarily pre-sale support) but had no desire to get a marketing position. How do you tell the company that they mis-matched you?

     Another interview. Largely for management but with technical competency aspects required. We went into the interview and some questions were asked. I gave answers which were, admittedly, not complete as I was not highly experienced in the specific technical areas for which they were probing. The interviewer laughed it off and moved the questions to other technical areas. After the interview, I felt it had gone well. It hadn't. They had "written me off" in the first five or ten minutes and then proceeded to fill time for the rest of the 45 minute interview without ever trying to find out whether I could do the work.

     In yet another interview, I was asked how I had dealt with a specific type of personnel problem. Not only had I not experienced that type of personnel problem but my experiences had been the reverse of the interviewer's questions. Be prepared to answer questions on a "what if" basis. IF you had a particular situation, what would you do?

     It is easy to rant and rail about interviewers and interviewing but, once again, we are dealing with reality.

• Be prepared to tell them the information about yourself that you believe is applicable to the needs of the job -- don't assume they will ask you.
  
  
• If they ask nonsense questions, try to answer based on what you would say if they had asked a reasonable/relevant question. Don't directly tell them the question was nonsense.
  
  
• If they ask questions about which you have no experience, either say so and reply with information about a similar situation or be prepared to delve into a "what if" scenario and how you would deal with it.
  
  
• Probe for feedback -- "Is there something else you would like to know or something you need me to expand upon?"
  
  
• Ask questions. Ask questions about the job, the company, future directions, training, and how you would be evaluated. Unless it is a blind interview (you don't know with what company you are interviewing), research first.

     Above all, remember that an interview is mutual. They want to know if you are suitable for their needs and will be compatible with, and a positive force within, their business environment. You want to find out if it is a situation where your experience and abilities will be valued and, also, an environment in which you can continue to grow your career and yet have a rich personal life. While you should never try to insult an interviewer it should also not be a cause for concern to tell the truth as you see it because this may be an important aspect as to whether the position is for you.

     I have done more interviews than I have had as someone being interviewed. And, although I believe I know how to answer well in an interview, I do better at interviewing than at being interviewed.

     My interviews have primarily focused on the soft skills because, if they have the foundation, the tech skills can be learned. Soft skills are a lot harder to learn and can be quite painful to the teams while the person is learning them. Still, even with technical skills, I focus on what and why rather than how. A great mind is a great hire. A great mind with a great heart is a precious gem. I have hired some great folks who went on to continue to give back.

Gifting: An Intersection of Tastes

 

     What do I get Uncle John for Christmas? What do I get my mother for Mother's Day? What do I get for my significant other as an un-birthday gift? These types of questions often plague people who live in the consumeristic societies. In my more mature years, I prefer my gifts to be ones that help society and the earth rather than something physical that I will have to triage at some point soon in my life. But physical, social, spiritual, or event-oriented there is still a choice to be made.

     Sometimes, a choice is made strictly by budget. There is a pool of X.XX amount of money available for presents. Person A gets allocated Y.YY out of that budget. What is the "most" that can be purchased for that amount? That isn't inherently bad -- unless it is the only criterion that you have for the gift -- and will be a criterion for the gift whether that budget be time or money.  In cases where only budget  is considered, cash or a generic credit card might be better appreciated.

     But, for most, we want to choose a gift for someone. In order to choose a gift for someone that has a good chance of being appreciated and enjoyed, it is necessary to know the person. Do they have any hobbies? Do they already have a collection (and have not been heard moaning "why does everyone keep getting me GGGGG?")? Even more importantly, is there anything they need but cannot, or will not, get for themselves (in this case, there is a good chance that you won't be able to get it either -- but it is still a worthy criterion)? The better you know someone, the greater the likelihood that they will appreciate the gift.

     But, is that the only criterion for tailoring a gift for someone? Certainly, getting someone something that you would want to receive says something. But, it doesn't say much about the person to whom you are giving the gift. And, unless the person knows you especially well, they may not even recognize that you are, indeed, giving something that is a reflection of yourself. Getting a present based on your own needs, and desires, is perhaps better than a budget-only gift but not a lot better.

     An ideal is a gift that is an intersection of tastes. In this way, the gift is something the other person wants, or needs, and it is something that you, yourself, consider to be of value. This intersection moves the gift from the transient occasion to something that can provide a greater bond, or link, between the two of you. That bond might be romantic but, in no way is it limited to such. The bond of mutual appreciation could be within a friendship, business relationship, or within the world of charities.

     A gift that is given with mutuality allows later discussion, an opening for further expansion in the future, or a better understanding all around.

Optimal work: Striving for the best with the least

 

     Work too much. Work too little. Have too little information.  Have too much information. Have not enough help. Have too many doing too much when not wanted. Too little pressure to complete. Too much pressure to complete. Too few tools. So many tools it becomes overly complex.

     There are all types of factors that are involved with being productive. Those factors are usually on a sliding scale and, often, they may be interdependent. The most challenging aspect is that every person has a different set of "calibrations" -- what they need for optimal work -- and may have to find those conditions through iteration rather than analysis.

     People often do this accidentally as they move through their careers. In much of the technological world, we have trained ourselves to ignore indications from our bodies as well as our psyches. What do we need versus what do we want? Am I actually still hungry or am I eating as a placeholder for something else? Will I really be able to be productive working another three hours or will I end up redoing the work in the morning after I have collapsed for a number of hours? We often don't know.

     We look for ways that our environment will provide us a framework to help us through these choices. There is nothing wrong with such a framework and companies that are endeavoring to provide such should be appreciated and applauded. But, in the end, what is good for one person may not be good for another and it still needs to be absorbed, and understood, by the mind and body.

     This is the point at which observation skills and experience come into play for leaders. Evaluate by results AND by the observed stress and happiness level (recognizing that some are really good at hiding such from themselves and others). Keep lines of communication clear. Err on the side of less pressure, information, and workload. Listen.

The way you frame goals will mold how you achieve them

 

     "I want our team to work our hardest and do our best." "I want our team to win the contract." Are these two statements the same thing? I don't think so. There are so many ways a team can win a contract but stating "I want us to win" puts the situation into a win/lose category.

     There are two (probably more) ways for the "win the contract" scenario to come about. The first is that your team wins. The other is that the other team loses.

     There can be a concentration on hoping the other team does things such that they lose and ways to make the other team lose. The focus is a negative one and energy is spent concerning the other team.

     Their lead worker gets hurt, an important paper gets mislaid, your team steals important confidential information from them that gives you an edge, your team gives false information about the other team that influences the purchaser's opinion and decisions, you promise things you cannot fulfill knowing that the other team wouldn't make such promises, and so forth.

     These may be "skills" and "techniques" that you can use many times in the future, but they do not make your team better. They do not make your product better. It may improve your "bottom line" in the short-term but they do not make your team continue to improve for the long haul.

     How about the other way -- "I want our team to work our hardest and do our best." First, it may still end up being a win/lose but it does not preclude the possibility of win/win. Next, how do you achieve these goals? The goals of "working our hardest and doing our best"? You are now concentrating on your own team efforts. That doesn't mean you close your eyes and ears to what the competition is doing -- that is a legitimate part of work. But you are concentrating on your own team. Keeping realistic work/life balance in mind and the reality that overextending is counter-productive, you try to make each 8 hours of work include 8 hours of useful work. And, within that work time, you want to help your team function at their best. People work according to their strengths, overhead is minimized, obstacles are removed, and coordination and communication is made as directly useful as possible.

    You can, of course, substitute in the words appropriate for other competitive situations in life -- personal, business, political, and so on.

     At the end of the period, you will have gotten the contract or not. But if you have worked hard and done your best then you won't have any regrets. You can shake the hands of your competitors, smile, and say "Congratulations. Wait until next time." And sleep well.