Hocus Pocus: The Distance Between Magic to Science

    Arthur C. Clarke, famous science fiction and science fact writer, once said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
     Although stories told about witches primarily exist from what is, in the West, often called "the Dark Ages", the underlying problem continues to exist. Someone -- especially a social loner who is doing something not considered "normal" -- has knowledge and experience beyond that of others. If it is useful, they may be allowed to exist to be used by others. That is, they allow it to be used until something bad happens and they use the target of their fear and ignorance as a scapegoat and attack them.
     Hanging on my waist, I have a device that has computational power much greater that that of a 1951/52 UNIVAC that occupied an entire room 65 years ago. If you took that same smartphone and presented it in the town of Salem, Massachusetts 325 years ago, you could look forward to being on the non-preferred side of the Witch Trials.  However, if you took the smartphone back to 1952, most of the technology would be totally unexplainable. Depending on your audience, they would declare it to be an amazing fake, a stage device, or -- yes, magic. Very few would believe that it was real but you most likely would not be subject to being burned at a stake.
      Science consists of building upon previously discovered knowledge. Any jump in knowledge is typically met with suspicion. Einstein's theory of general relativity was a jump in understanding. It took years to be accepted and the "in-between" steps are still being proven even unto this day (2017 Nobel Prize being given for detection of "gravitational waves"). Leonardo Da Vinci was sufficiently wise to keep most of his ideas and discoveries isolated within his journals. His public face was largely concerned with his works of art for the Church and the rich. Since it didn't happen, we cannot know for certain, but I suspect that if he had succeeded in building, and demonstrating, a functional flying machine it would have had, at best, very mixed reactions from the Church and public.
     The split in perception between science and magic works both directions. Something that would be considered "commonplace" within current society (even if really understood by only a small subsection of the people) would be considered "magic" in the past. When people envision things in the future, it is often classified into "science fiction" UNLESS it is some ability or behavior that does not have an obvious basis in current science. Flying cars are science fiction. Functional "spells" are magic.
     Current, scientifically acceptable, spells are called algorithms. They piece together various simple instructions into logical frameworks and decision networks and come out with a "game App" or a "streaming video App" or a "communal workspace App". All of these would have been considered magic in the past. I will make the guess that there are a lot of things, about which we speculate as magic, that will also become commonplace in the future. In order for applications (Apps) to work, however, the convenient microcomputer/smartphone must also be present. Will it be true that, in order for Harry Potter's spells to become valid that some other foundation device must be created?
     What ideas of the future would you classify as magic? Do you see scientific paths to have them realized? What ideas would be the most inexplicable if sent to the past?

Pay and the Perception of Fairness

     Once upon a time, I worked for a high-tech division (Bell Laboratories) of a company. Within the company, the technical people knew what the pay scale was on a statistical basis. Each level of promotion was paid the square root of two, on average, times the average pay of the level below. Thus, my department head (the manager of my manager) would, on average, be paid twice the amount that someone at my level, on average, would get paid. This went up at least four levels. It did NOT go to the very top (more on that later) but it did go up a ways.
     There were sub-levels to which the square root of two did not apply. For example, the equivalent of a SW Engineer I versus a SW Engineer II did not connect to the ratio of the square root of two. But, in general, people knew what type of average deltas existed between levels (and even sub-levels, to a point). I keep saying "on average" because, as was (and still is) true for most companies, the monetary amount for each level was not publicly discussed -- neither the average nor the range.
     This worked well. The precise amount did not matter too much. Maybe each level could have increased by the square root of three rather than two. It couldn't be a lot more than that, however, and still be considered "fair". It was known, and understood, that each level had more responsibility than the previous but -- beyond a certain ratio -- pay ratios could get out of whack (no longer at a reasonable point). Perception of fairness depended on two things -- visibility of ratios and a translation of that to a delta of responsibilities and duties.
     How high up in the hierarchy did this pay ratio between levels apply? I don't know. As stated earlier, it made it four levels up. Beyond that, I don't know except that it did NOT apply to the highest executive levels. Thus, at some point, the ratios were discarded.
     This discrepancy, or abandonment, of fairness at the higher layers was a topic of discussion. Most of the time it was just something in the background as we were doing OK within the company and system. One year, however, the CEO doubled their salary while doing a pay freeze for the rest of the employees. That did not go down well but it was known that most of the people were there because they could do the work they wanted to do -- not primarily for the money. But the perception of fairness never returned and morale never quite made it back to the same levels.
     So, how should a CEO be paid? What is fair? If you used the formula I mentioned at the beginning here, then a CEO of a huge corporation should be paid about 16 times that of a regular worker. Is that close to the reality? Nope. Not even in Poland, where a CEO gets about 28 times that of a regular worker. If we used the (straining the "fairness" doctrine) square root of three (rather than two) ratio, it would mean that a CEO of a huge corporation would be paid 81 times that of a regular worker.
     What is it like in the United States? About 354 times that of a regular worker -- it continues to go up and up. The highest in Europe is a ratio of about 148 to 1 in Switzerland. An article with more numbers is here.
     So, once again, what is fair? More important, what meets the PERCEPTION of fair? Perception of fairness goes hand in hand with perceived mobility. If I can work hard and get that golden apple, that brass ring of the merry-go-round, that round-the-clock money mill then almost anything can be perceived as fair. Dreams of winning the lottery just don't allow reality and statistics to interfere.
     Note that there are two categories of CEOs -- those who are heads of private corporations and those who are heads of public corporations. The CEOs of private corporations often have relatively low salaries because they have large amounts of equity (ownership) and recognize that putting money back into the company (if successful) will give them a higher eventual rate of return. Taking out a lower salary allows the money to be used to actively grow the company. When I was "Vice President of Engineering" of a company that I co-founded, my salary was only a little (not even the square root of two ) higher than the rest of the employees.
     The CEOs of public corporations have salaries, perks, "golden parachutes", and so forth determined by the board of directors. They will have equity as part of their compensation but their salaries have no direct interaction with the equity. In other words, a lower salary does not translate into higher potential equity and a higher salary does not mean less equity.
     So, how is the compensation package of the CEO of a for-profit (non-profit is similar but generally has a ceiling beyond which people won't tolerate) public corporation determined? First, please note that public corporations (those which have had a successful Initial Public Offering (IPO)) are going to be beyond the small scale of most private corporations. Saying, as an example, that an average employee's compensation package (salary, taxes, benefits, physical overhead, etc.) is $50,000/year this would indicate an average U.S. CEO salary of $17.7 Million/year. Obviously, a company grossing $15 Million/year cannot pay this. Probably a company would have to start reaching a $500 Million/year gross income before their board of directors would even consider a $17.7 Million/year compensation package for the CEO.
     The above referenced study actually indicates the average CEO salary in the U.S. is approximately $12.3 Million/year (less than that $17.7 Million/year of the example calculation). I have not seen a distribution graph of CEO salaries. However, the highest paid CEO in the U.S. for 2017 is $236 Million/year. My suspicion (not verified by any hard data) is that the distribution does not follow a standard bell curve. I think that there are a lot of lower salaries from smaller companies that bring down the average from the higher paid ones. But, since the average still exists at 354 times average worker, there also has to be a lot of very highly paid ones.
     These highly paid CEOs are not really in the salaried employee category. They are Rock Stars, Professional Sports First Draft Picks, Celebrity Panelists, and so forth. Their compensation packages are based on competition between boards of directors which keep inflating compensating packages in order to "win" -- show that they have a better CEO because they are paid more. There is no tie between company performance and package and most have such extensive separation packages that someone can be hired as a CEO, do a horrible job, and leave with enough money to support 1,000 (or more) families for a year.
     Boards of directors are theoretically determined by the stockholders -- but stockholders care primarily about quarterly results and, with the mega corporations, even effective losses of hundreds of millions of dollars, don't affect the bottom line much. If that is so, does it really matter what the CEOs are paid? Some say no, it doesn't. Personally, I think (like the situation from my earlier career days) it poisons morale. And, whether it affects the stockholder's value or not, that $236 Million/year is paid for by at least $1000/employee in the one company. In other companies, it may affect the "average" employee even more. But it is still all part of the package of valuation of employees at companies -- not just the CEO's compensation package.

I am not getting older, I am acquiring a new layer

     I have the privilege of turning 60 years of age this year. It is indeed a privilege but I cannot truly claim that I feel like I have been growing older -- it's just that more and more of the people around me are growing younger each year. While there are indeed parts of this body that are not running as well as they used to, there are a (too) few parts that run better than ever. I am, indeed, the same person that I used to be but, like a tree with its tree rings, I keep accumulating layers.

     Perhaps an analogy to a Matryoshka nesting doll might be more appropriate. Someone from the outside notices only the outside layer but I have access to all of the layers down to the first one that became self-aware. (That seems to vary from person to person -- some even claiming to recall their birth.)

     That doesn't mean that all of the layers are intact or equally accessible. As is true for most people, there are periods of my life that didn't go so well -- or had outside events happening that prevented (or accelerated) growth during that time. In this situation, perhaps tree rings are a better analogy; growth rings get wider or narrower depending on existing conditions for the year. Perhaps, like the view of light in physics, the layers can be seen differently depending on what is being observed.

     This view is not symmetrical -- people on the "outside" first see the outside layer of the nesting doll. And, frankly, people are not very good at observing those layers. Due to wonderful inheritances from my parents and grandparents, I got my first white hair at age 11 and was largely bald by age 30. A teenager gave me my first senior discount at age 38. (I didn't ask for it but who was I to embarrass them by refusing it?) It works in my favor now, however, as people start saying how young I look for my age .

     I say that people first see the outside layer -- but once people start getting to know others those layers start peeling away. I have an advantage, of course, because I already know what is underneath my own layers. Younger people may have more difficulty finding my layer that is parallel to theirs. One has to be a bit careful in "behaving one's age" if, for that day, you actually feel that 21-year-old within you trying to peek back out.

     One of the exercises of advancing age is to keep de-nesting the layers of the doll. If a situation calls for the attitudes of a 21-year-old then do so (tempered by the (hoped-for) wisdom and experience of your later layers). It is important to not let the layers get stuck together because there is so much that was learned and times when the attitudes and approaches of each age are the most appropriate.

Troll attack: the new playground bully of the Internet

    The more that a person uses social media, the more likely it is that you will be the subject of a troll attack. Like most situations of being attacked, the most direct way of avoiding such an attack is to not be present. Within social media, this means do not post -- do not show any indication that you exist. For some people, this works pretty well -- they "lurk" in the background and notice what is happening in other people's lives and what are the topics that others are interested in discussing.
     There is nothing wrong with passive use of social media -- unless there is something important going on about which you want to give your opinion. Or some event is occurring of which you are particularly proud -- maybe an anniversary or an award that your child has won. Or you keep encountering situations where you say to yourself -- "yes, that is possibly true -- but this other point, which I think is much more important, keeps being missed". Perhaps they keep talking about point B and they don't talk about point A which is related but not the same.
     Pride, knowledge, a desire to contribute all may add to the reasons why you may want to actively participate. But, once you are visible, you can (and probably will) be attacked.
     You may have heard about flame wars -- which are related to troll attacks. In both cases, the person attacking is primarily making personal attacks -- the messages have little, if any, relation to what was actually said. Many times, there is no way to tell from the attack whether the original message was read at all. However, the sneakiest (and most hurtful) troll attacks occur when they DO mention something that is somewhat relevant to what you have said -- because it can seem like the personal attack is based on some part of your message. It isn't.
     Why would a person conduct a troll attack? It truly is the same situation as a "playground" (or workplace, or other locale) bully. First, they are angry. You don't know why but they are angry. Perhaps they lost their job or were refused a promotion in a job or their child was struck by an unlicensed (and uninsured) driver or they dropped a bowling ball on their foot or they were just screamed at by their mother or cousin. You just plain do not know. The only thing you know is that they are angry.
     Second, they want to hurt others. Why do they want to hurt others? Why do they want to hurt you? Unfortunately, many people seem to feel that if others are feeling badly, or are being treated badly, then they -- in comparison to the others -- are doing better. This happens with various prejudices as well as in the arena of bullying.
     Why are they attacking you? Well, it is possible that your message mentioned a keyword -- or "hot button" -- something about which they have an entire set of preset ideas and emotions. Am I saying that they ARE addressing your message? No -- not at all. They are still creating a personal attack based on anger. They are not listening (reading), analyzing, researching, thinking, or anything that really is concerned with the topic. They are reacting in anger because they are angry.
     Why else might they choose you to attack? It might be because your message shows some indication that you may be vulnerable to attack -- it indicates insecurity or that you are hurting -- and there are also "-ist" attacks based on peripheral things like religion or pigmentation or ethnic origin or such. They attack because you seem to be a person who can be attacked.
     What do you do if you are attacked? Personally, I suggest to do nothing. Like other bullies, if they do not get anything back to feed their anger, they will choose a different target. (It is conceivable, but unlikely, that they will even reconsider what they have said and try a different response -- at which point in time it is up to you whether to respond.) It may be useful for you to create a reply -- but never, never send it -- in order to allow emotional responses to find a form.
     It is possible that others will come to your defence -- which may have some effectiveness unless they also start attacking from anger rather than addressing the contents of the messages.
     Disagreements occur in life -- and they occur on the Internet. When the contents of messages are addressed, researched, explained, expanded upon, and treated as a bit of information within a much larger pool of information, those disagreements can lead to growth, change, and continued exchanges of ideas. When people attack the person who writes the message then there is no route to constructive response. It is an emotion not a thought and they may have reasons to be angry -- but they do not have the right to address that anger upon you.
     How do you deal with flames and troll attacks? Do you have any methods that work to decrease them?

What is Critical about Mass: having enough to sustain a process

    There is a phrase used from time to time -- "critical mass". This phrase was initially used in regards to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. In order for a nuclear device to be able to start a fission (splitting atoms) reaction, there must be enough material that each splitting of an atom creates enough energy to allow for the splitting of additional (at least one more) atoms. So, the critical mass is enough radioactive material to allow for the process to continue once it is started.

   This concept is central to the creation of weapons because a bomb is created such that two, or more, amounts that are less than critical mass are kept close together -- when it is desired to detonate, the smaller amounts are pushed together to create the critical mass and the reaction can take place. A bomb is "clean" if it has the opportunity to split most of its radioactive material before spreading apart and "dirty" if it ends up spreading the radioactive material (not fissioned) into the surrounding area.

   This concept is also important with the design of nuclear power plants -- rather what NOT to do when designing a plant. A properly designed plant will maintain control of how much radioactive material is allowed to be near each other (with the addition of materials called "damping" rods which absorb excess energy). This is important not only for safety but also for the economic operation of the plant. If a plant is not designed this way then it is just a one-time-use bomb. Thus, nuclear power plants (though there may be other dangers) are almost impossible to cause nuclear explosions.

   One more term that is very important to this topic is the "tipping point". This is the very small range that exists between NOT having a critical mass and the amount reaching a critical mass. Just a bit more and it becomes critical. Remove just a bit and it becomes inoperative. Before the tipping point is reached, the process requires continued external energy to maintain progress towards the critical mass.

   All that is just a preamble to this blog [smile]. The concept of critical mass enters into many areas of our society -- political, economic, sociological, and so forth.

   One area of present interest and, which is entering the region of the tipping point, is that of electric cars. Electric cars have been around for quite a while (according to the Net, 1834). However, we do not see electric cars everywhere -- it is mostly internal combustion (gas or diesel) engine cars. Cars, by definition, are used for movement. This means that the source of their energy must be carried along with them. In the case of gasoline engine cars, this means tanks of gas. In the case of electric cars (actually, electric engine powered cars), this means batteries (or an awfully long electrical cord [smile]).

   Batteries have traditionally not been very powerful or very efficient. This continues to change and, although not specifically a critical mass, they are now reaching the point of efficiency to be able to be used more practically. (Note that the same idea is involved with the efficiency of solar cells for solar power.)

   Even with more efficient batteries, they still must be charged on a regular basis and the means to charge them must be close enough together (driving range) such that an electric car can go from one charging station to another. Additionally, the time needed to charge the battery must be relatively short or timed such that the charging can reliably be done at "non-use" times (such as night).

   So, the technology needed to have practical electrical cars on the roads requires three things: sufficiently efficient batteries to provide workable range, charging stations within that range, and technology sufficient to compete with other alternatives. This is now beginning to happen. We are close to the tipping point. The external energy causing us to reach this point has come from the dedication of various people who want the end result. Note that the same process happened to make the internal combustion car practical in the early 1900s.

   Another area of critical mass is concerned with political, or social, matters. Let us take the matter of the ability to vote, within the United States, for women. Within the democratic process, one group cannot grant themselves additional authority, privileges, or rights. They must be granted such by the people who already have that power. This means a process of change of thoughts and attitudes. The energy to achieve that came from dedicated people who worked towards that goal. They achieved critical mass when enough of the existing authorized voters were convinced that women should be granted the right to vote.

   There are many areas where the ideas of a tipping point, and critical mass, are important. They are both involved in areas of change. The change may be a chemical, or physical, process. The change may be a social process. The change may be a political process. But they each have stages and move from one to another by approaching the tipping point, reaching critical mass, and effecting the change.

    What areas of critical mass do you see approaching and which ones do you see from the past?

Economics and the Meaning of Money

    I usually look at the economy as a form of applied sociology. Money is only worth something if people believe that it is worth something. This applies equally to gold and jewels as much as it applies to pieces of paper with people's pictures printed on it. In a similar fashion, money is distributed according to the rules (explicit or implicit) that people decide upon.

    A barter system works when each person (or family) is capable of doing most things needed for survival on their own. They then trade things that they have in excess for things that others have in excess. I give you an extra chicken and you give me a bushel of potatoes. I give you a length of material that I have woven and you give me a chair. Barter is a mixture of labor, materials, difficulty, and time combined into value.

    When each person can NOT do most things they need for survival, the barter system becomes very inconvenient. It is necessary to keep records/charts of equivalences. One type A chair is equal to two meters of cloth. Two type B chairs are equal to one type A chair. Ten chickens are equal to one meter of cloth. This complexity arises out of the need for each family unit to trade for many different types of things. Once this happens, the next step is to equate the value to something in common. Ten seashells represent the value of one chicken. A meter of cloth is equivalent to 100 seashells. Every item of value can be represented by a certain number of seashells. This representation of value is called money.

    Once the value of work and things have been "abstracted" into money, it is very easy to lose sight of real value. The work done by an experienced, talented teacher is probably worth more to society than that of a software developer -- but the software developer probably makes a higher salary. In "capitalistic" societies, the control of money is considered to have value in itself. That is, if I possess one million seashells then I no longer have to produce anything of value myself -- the circumstances (earned and saved, gifted, or inherited) of having the seashells allows me to distribute some portion to other people who then produce the actual value (plus more for me to hold).

    Within "new age" philosophy, it is popular to think that the economy is no longer a "zero sum" game. That is, each and every person, can earn as much money as she/he wants -- that there is not a "fixed pot" of X seashells in the pot and each can have as much as they want without reducing the amount that others are able to have. That's a happy philosophy but is it true?

    Although money makes lots of games possible with the distribution and use -- the basis of money still goes back to production and use. If 100 people each want a fish but there are only 50 fish then the value of each fish will rise until the 50 people who most want a fish have them and the other 50 do not have them. If 100 people want a fish and there are 1000 fish, then the value should (the concept of money makes direct value difficult if not impossible) be equated to that combination of labor, materials, difficulty and time mentioned above. An abundance of resources (fish) causes value to go back to basics.

    Our global economy makes distribution of resources extremely unequal. Most people estimate, however, that there are enough resources (food, labor, energy) to support everyone currently on the planet. The fact that that does not happen is a problem with distribution and allocation. But, there is still a limit. Perhaps at twice the population there would NOT be enough for everyone (in an ideal world). This argues that it is a "fixed pot" -- there is a limit of resources to be distributed. In order to eliminate the fixed pot, it is necessary to get rid of the limitations of resources.

    Is there a way to eliminate the limitations of resources? I will look at that possibility in the next blog.

The economics of supersizing

I have to be careful when I talk about economics as it is such an all-pervasive subject that it is easy for me to lose focus. I consider it to be "applied sociology" -- or a measured way of evaluating how people interact and value each other within society.

Once upon a time, during a telephone interview with Google, I talked with them about how I thought Google was in a fantastic position to create an interlinked database of products, employment, and salaries. As only one example, such a database, and associated tools, could be of enormous help in figuring out how to migrate from a fossil fuel economy to a renewable fuel economy while minimizing the effects on the economy and individual workers. (Later, with 35 years of software architecture, programming, and managerial experience, Google called me in to interview for a marketing position -- they definitely have a sense of humor.)

See how easy it is for me to lose focus!

In the area of focus for this blog, supersizing involves a combination of total profits and perceived value. Perceived value is a subjective matter -- it depends on the individual and their history. In the US, it is considered to be of greater value to get more food for less money per amount -- in spite of the fact that the greater amount is unneeded and ends up being waisted (misspelling intentional). In most European countries, quantity does not enter into the equation for value as much as quality. In some other countries, it is a sufficient struggle to just get enough to eat.

When a product is sold, it is sold at a specific price. This price can be determined in one of two general ways. These are basically "cost plus" or "demand pricing". With "cost plus", the price is determined by a specific amount added to the cost of producing the item (including all overhead such as building costs, utility costs, storage, labor, and inventory loss). So, if a thingamabob costs $1 to make, store, sell, and so forth and the company wants to make 20% profit on selling thingamabobs, the price will be set at $1.20. With "demand pricing", the price is set to the highest amount that will lead to the greatest total profit. This is a bit more complicated.

"Net profit" is the difference between all the costs associated with making and selling something and the amount for which it is sold. In the "cost plus" example, there is a net profit of $0.20 or 16 2/3% (20 divided by 120). In "demand pricing", net profit is determined in a similar fashion except that the goal is to maximize the total profit.

In order to maximize total profit, the goal is sell the MOST possible at a specific net profit such that the total amount is the greatest. For example, selling 1000 of something that has a net profit of $0.20 will give a total profit of $200. Selling 500 of something that has a net profit of $0.50 will give a total profit of $250. So, even though you are selling less, you end up with a greater amount of total profit. But, if you get especially greedy and start selling something a a net profit of $1 and only sell 100, you will end up with only $100 profit.

The practice of pricing for "demand pricing" is an art and involves marketing (convincing you it is something you want), branding (letting you recognize the product and make positive associations that increases its perceived value),  and competition.

If you have a product that is desired by people and you are the only one who makes the product then you can demand the greatest amount. If you have a product that is made by many different companies and there is little perceived difference of value, then you enter what is called "commodity pricing" which usually has small net profits per item and requires mass production and sales to be profitable.

So, we come down to the area of supersizing (finally, you say). Supersizing (in the US) does two things -- it increases the perceived value and it increases the net profit (it MAY also increase total sales because of the increase in perceived value ). Let's say that you sell a tidbit that has $0.50 costs associated with what goes into it (raw, or pre-processed, food ingredients), $0.30 labor, $0.50 overhead (such as building, heating, lighting, franchise fees, etc.), and $0.30 for sales (marketing, "free" toys, posters, advertising, etc.). You then sell the tidbit for $2, giving a net profit of $0.40/item (or 20%).

If you can convert that sale into buying something bigger -- let's say twice as big. then the only thing that you have increased is the costs of what goes into it. [There is, admittedly, a little more overhead concerning storage of more stuff but that is often balanced with a reduction in cost of buying raw materials.] So, rather than $0.50 of stuff going into it, there is $1 associated with the costs. You then sell the item for $3 and you make a net profit of $0.90/item (or 30%). If you make it three times as large and sell it for $4, you would make a net profit of $1.40/item (or 35%). This is how supersizing translates into FAT profits (OK, I admit it, I like puns).

In summary, as long as people see greater value in buying more food for less per amount, it will be difficult to persuade companies to not supersize as this is an easy way for them to achieve greater profits. The only route is to change mindset to demand greater quality rather than greater quantity.