Retirement : A matter of choice

 

     Lots of people (especially in the higher paying segments of the work force) dream of retirement -- the earlier the better. But what is retirement, really? For many people, they are more active after that change-in-subject-title than before. For others, it can mean doing virtually nothing. So, retirement is not a matter of activity.

    For me, retirement is closely related to the division between work and play (which also relates back to a work life balance). Work is what you "have" to do. Play is what you "want" to do. For some people, work and play are the same thing as they enjoy what they are doing so much that, even after "work hours", that is the first thing that they would choose to do. For others, work and play are quite separate.

     So, what is the distinction between work and play? What marks the boundary between our work periods and retirement? Before retirement, it is required that you perform certain tasks in order to be able to live within our society -- that is called "work". You may get paid money or not -- but doing those tasks allow you (hopefully) to eat, sleep in comfort, be entertained, and continue to live and grow (though not everyone does that well).

     There are those who just have to exist -- which, to me, would be extraordinarily boring. Their ability to avoid ongoing "work" is established by the economic rules and/or their family/friends/relatives. The work that has been needed for them to survive is one (or two) steps removed. At some point in the chain which allows them not to work, there are multiple people working to support them. I went into the details of that in an earlier blog.

     So, I propose that the main distinction of play or retirement, is that a person no longer has to perform specific tasks to survive in society. Whether or not to do specific tasks are now a voluntary choice. (Yes, there are personal tasks still needed -- sleep, eating, and so forth.) Maybe you love what you have been doing -- you continue to do such (possibly now unpaid) but as a choice. Perhaps you have wanted to do something (and may, or may not, be good at it) but realized that the chances were good that it would not have been sufficient for society to allow you to live (that is, it wouldn't earn enough to pay the bills). (Sometimes people take the leap and it works -- they become that 1 in 10,000 person who makes a living at those tasks.)

     Some people, never reaching the situation where they do not have to continue working -- day to day -- to survive, will never retire. Some people believe that they have reached that point and circumstances change such that they have to return to the working side of the boundary. But, in all cases, a person will be able to recognize that they have achieved retirement if they now are choosing whether or not they will perform those non-personal tasks.

The Lure of Authoritarianism : A Comfortable Ignorance

 

     There are usually considered to be four parental "styles". These are authoritarian/disciplinarian, permissive/indulgent, uninvolved, and authoritative. These "parental" styles extend to leaders outside of the family -- government officials, religious authorities, social groups, also extended families that may affect hundreds of people. 

     The permissive/uninvolved types of authorities work only as a "figurehead" -- where the people who are being led must be autonomous and able to handle decisions and actions without assistance or leadership. This can happen within families, groups, or even countries. In most cases within larger groups of countries, there is actually a "shadow" government that operates behind the "curtain", and enacts policies, with the figurehead as a spokesperson. Of course, it is possible to have a dysfunctional family or group which has a "figurehead" without the people in the group having the capacity for being autonomous.

    Authoritarian and Authoritative sound very similar and they do both have "authority" in common. Someone leads, someone makes the final decision. However, the authoritarian is closed, or self-isolated -- they know everything, everything they believe is true, all actions are THE correct action, any deviations from THE correct way must be punished, all other people are wrong unless they support the leader's own directives, and so forth.

     Someone who is authoritative is open -- they get data from as many sources that they can, all actions, and decisions, can be evaluated and improved, deviations from expected behavior are evaluated, and punished if deemed necessary, but learned from and, potentially, expected behavior can be modified. The authoritative leader is usually considered to be the style that allows the most growth within the group that is led.

     Within a family, tribe, or an extended family, choice of leader is often based on tradition and the leadership/parental style is fixed within that individual. Beyond the family, leadership is determined in many different ways but, ultimately, is actively or passively chosen by the group that is being led. Within a monarchy or dictatorship, all four styles may be in effect depending on the ruler. Effectiveness, and popularity, of the ruler will depend on the leadership style and many factors outside of the leader's control -- weather, harvests, earthquakes, ...

     The time when there is a choice is when a country or group has a democracy -- direct or representative. It is during these times that the general political and economic environment makes a huge difference. Anger and fear are gifts to support an authoritarian leader. As Frank Herbert said in the novel "Dune" -- "Fear is the Mind Killer". People turn to authoritarian leaders to tell them what to do and what to think. It can be very comfortable as long as they don't start noticing consequences. Only (internally or externally, imposed) ignorance continues to support a destructive authoritarian leader.

     Emotions can easily overshadow thought. 

     Authoritarian leaders will often do things -- actions and words -- to make the electorate angry or fearful in order to increase support. They can gain acceptance in times of uncertainty and change which give initial fear and anger that can be manipulated. For example, the punitive restrictions on the German people following World War I gave fertile ground of which Adolf Hitler was able to take advantage.

     No matter where one turns, at present, there are drastically conflicting data and presented "facts". While it is true that many questions, or situations, do not have a single answer, the underlying reality can usually be determined. It requires serious research and staying out of the "data silo" that parrots only what each other says, and allows in only those concepts that are already believed.

Data Silos: not just storage

     Many moons ago, I had a summer part-time job building grain silos in southern Kansas. Grain silos are buildings -- presently usually built with aluminum and concrete -- which allow storage of grain (corn, wheat, barley, oats, ...) such that they are contained, out of the potential rain, and on a dry surface. This allows them to stay good for an extended length of time and not rot.

     I haven't worked on a grain silo now for a long time. But I spend a lot of time trying to break down data silos. Data silos also keep things around for a long time. Some (mis)information within data silos may have been circulating for a decade or more. They also keep the data contained -- the data is circulated amongst the other sites and organizations that are within the data silo.

     The silo is delimited by internal consistency. Stories and sites within the silo refer to each other, repeat what others say, and report or create new information based on the information already being circulated within the silo. If you believe "A" to be true then you will only see information about "A" being true. If you believe "C" to be false, then you will only see information about "C" being false.

     As is true in many areas of life, there are actually a spectrum of truths that are happening. Event A is happening. Event B is happening. G said Y. G also said Q. One silo may report on A and G saying Q -- but nothing about B or G saying Y.  Another silo may report only on B and G saying Y. Thus, at times, multiple data silos can each contain A reality -- but a carefully maintained subset of reality.

     I mention creation of information. In other words -- fantasies, misdirection, lies. Why would a person or site deliberately create false information? I am not talking about someone who has "passed along" something false because they don't have the motivation to check to see if it is true first. I am talking about deliberate creation of false information. Why would a person or site do that?

     One reason is a desire for self-promotion. For an individual, their name gets associated with "information" that is exciting or motivating for others to remain in their data silo. For sites, there are often factors of advertising dollars or political inclination. Some "news" sites have teams of data creators -- very similar to the teams of script writers used for comedy shows or other variety shows that used to be popular. And, of course, there are sites and individuals who are not who they say they are -- international or domestic organizations who desire to maintain and intensify the divisions created by data silos.

     There are tools available to help a person break out of a data silo -- to get a more balanced (and, overall, much more accurate) view of what is going on. There are sites that evaluate general reliability. and bias ("right" or "left") of information such as that published by Ad Fontes Media. There are various "fact checking" organizations such as Politifact, Snopes, and FactCheck. There are two problems about these tools being used to break out of a data silo.

     The first, and most confining one, is that you have to have some degree of trust that the site, itself, isn't biased and deliberately giving a distorted view. Most of the more trusted sites, as listed above, are well liked AND disliked by many points in the spectrum of thought. That is probably a decent yardstick by which to measure. Deliberate information may, however, be more concentrated in certain areas -- the Ad Fontes Media graph can only point this out for well-known public information sites. The private sites that report, or create, information are not evaluated.

     The second, and possibly most difficult to change, reason that people do not try to break out of their data silos is that they don't want to. They are comfortable. The information may comfort them, or make them angry -- but only in the ways that they already are oriented. No confusion -- only yes/no, true/false -- and no spectrum of items.

     I talk about people breaking out of their data silos. Can't an outside person break another person out of their silo? No, I don't think so. Change of a person's ideas, or behaviors, has to be rooted in their own desire. That desire may be based on outside things (a new significant other, something so outrageous and blatantly false that it makes the ground shake, a drastic change of environment, ...) but the desire must be internal.

Exit Plans: Tantalizing Optimism for Entrepreneurs

     When I was a partner in my own company, one of the things we (very optimistically) discussed from time to time was our "exit plan".  An "exit plan" is what is able to be done if personal circumstances change, or there is a desire to do something else, or (alas) we just want to stop the existing work. Owning shares of a private company has varying obligations and expectations depending on the corporate charter and the corporate laws of the state. But, in general, any ownership is "non-liquid". There is no inherent correspondence to a monetary value and shares may, or may not, be possible to be sold to another for some mutually agreed value.

     Building up the value of the company is a foundational desire for all corporate situations. And we did, with a 60% growth rate over the first six years of business. With escalating value (as measured by gross income, number of clients, and size of portfolio) the "exit plan" became of even more interest.

     Would we work to get acquired, go public, continue to stay private and expand? Staying private had many appealing points and we had no problems staying in that state -- but it did not solve "exit" needs. We decided that, for us, the notion of going public did not appeal. We did not deeply study the process, so I cannot pass along any pearls of "wisdom" we obtained in that study. It requires a lot of bureaucracy and a very appealing (not just solid) business plan to attract both an underwriter and investors for the IPO. The overhead largely precludes its use for very small companies (you can define "a small company" for yourself).

     Which leaves us with preparing for acquisition (only larger, well established, already public companies usually go through mergers). There are a number of aspects associated with valuation for acquisition. Gross income, Net income (profit margin), size of portfolio, "cost of entry" (how special is what you do -- could just anybody with just general knowledge easily do it),  intellectual property (patents, copyrights, ...), seasoned informed staff (who will continue after acquisition), market projections, and other both tangible and intangible aspects.

     Usually, the final valuation is expressed in terms of "multiples" of gross income. A "1x" valuation says the business is viable but they just think it is worth taking over but no special benefit or advantage. Less than a "1x" valuation is more in the "fire sale" area -- there are things that the company have that are useful but the business itself is not viable. Companies aim for a multiple of greater than 1. At certain periods of time, I have seen multiples of as much as 15 times (you may have seen higher). When the economy is not booming, a multiple of 6 times gross income might be considered a very nice number.

     Another point of view is to look at acquisitions from the respect of "pain points". ("Pain points" can also apply to hiring decisions.) Say company X has a wide portfolio of products from A to H, but not something that fills in the "C" area. Getting a company that fills in the "C" gap addresses a current "pain" -- a loss of opportunity. Or company Q has a product FG that is rated only in the bottom half in comparison to its competitors and there is a smaller company T that has a product FZ which is rated at, or near, the top. This addresses the "pain point" of not being well competitive by purchasing the ability to bring the competitor's product into the fold. Other "pain points" exist. The basis is that there is something that the acquiring company finds difficult to do, or have, internally and can fill that need from outside.

     So, you boost your value as much as you can. You have a general idea for whom you might fill some need/pain. Now you need a matchmaker -- someone who can find the company with the need that you can provide -- and who will negotiate a mutually acceptable amount. The matchmaker can be an employee of either company or she/he can be someone in an independent company that specializes more in M & A (Mergers and Acquisitions).

     Part of the negotiation will involve continued commitments. Perhaps they want you (generic "you" -- it might be a number of people) to stay around for a couple of years. Perhaps they want you to leave immediately. Perhaps the company has to meet some type of goal within the next year or two. Perhaps the payments are done over time, each payment of which has to meet a specific criterion or set of criteria.

     At some point, IF the acquisition succeeds, you are now ready for your next great adventure.

AI and the "3 Laws of Robotics" : Could it be done?

     For those of us who crawled under the covers with a flashlight as we were growing up, Isaac Asimov will probably always be the first thing we think of when the word "robot" turns up. Of course, in Asimov's world robots were always humanoid in appearance. In today's world, with robots becoming more and more integrated into society, we recognize that a human-appearing robot will fulfill only specialized niches,

     The robot (from the Czech word, robota, for "forced labor") only earns that definition if, once given a directive, it can work toward a variety of goals without further instruction. This ability is based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) (though I doubt there is a consensus on the definition of AI). The more, and larger variety, of autonomous actions that can be performed the "higher" the level of AI. Some (such as Alan Turing) believe that AI has only been achieved if one cannot distinguish between the "artificial" responder and a human one.

     Humans have the distinction of being able to do a huge variety of activities, including activities that have never been done before. So, for AI to approach human capabilities, the mechanism would need to be programmed to do them. Hundreds and thousands of tasks. Often such tasks are truly composed of "subtasks" such that those thousand tasks may be made up of, perhaps, 75 subtasks put together in different specific sequences.

     This is rather a lot of work, however, and it would be so much "easier" if the robot could determine how to do new tasks by itself. If a robot is pre-programmed, it can only do what it has precisely been told how to do. "Scratch the right side of the nose" is a different task from "Scratch the left side of the nose". (Sensors could be installed that activate a signal called "itch" and then the program could say "scratch the place that itches".) This self-programming is often called machine learning, which is considered to be a subset of AI.

     Many people are afraid of robots taking over from humans. Whether they develop a contempt of humans -- as within the "Terminator" series or being used as supersoldiers to control, hurt, or kill humans. In order to help people have a more compassionate and trusting view of robots, Isaac Asimov invented the 3 Laws of Robotics which are as follows:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

This is a hierarchy of importance: human life, following orders, self-preservation. For humans, self-preservation may sometimes take the top position -- the idea being, once again, that human life is of more importance than robotic life.

     We will deal only with the "First Law" in this blog. This breaks into two categories -- active harm and lack of prevention of harm (when known and possible). For pre-programmed robots, it is easy to avoid the first -- just don't program that task. For self-programmed robots, there needs to be an "override" program to prevent action if it will cause harm.

     The second, prevention of harm, is much, much, harder as it requires "judgement" -- deciding how dangerous a situation is and what various contingencies might arise that put people into danger. This is the situation currently facing those who are trying to program self-driving cars. The problem is similar between pre-programmed and self-programmed robots/mechanisms. For pre-programmed robots, all of the contingencies must be thought of -- good luck, but it isn't likely to be possible. It is possible to envision a self-programmed robot to "learn" enough to be as good as a human in their judgement -- but we currently don't know how to do that. Maybe we will learn.

     The "other hand" to this, however, is that implementation of the "First Law" is purposeful. It must be done deliberately. There are too many people, and too many groups, that currently have people deliberately hurting other people. It is not reasonable to think that usage of robots will be any better than usage of people. This leads us to the world of the "Terminator", programmed face-recognition assault drones, supersoldiers and all of the nightmares of technologic fear.

     In Asimov's world, "U.S. Robotics" had a monopoly on building robots and was a benevolent entity that insisted on the 3 laws being in each "positronic" brain for their robots. In our world, there is no effective control of technology in a preventative mode (we can make laws to penalize use after the face). I cannot imagine how we can prevent some of this harm from occurring but there are a LOT of very creative, imaginative, intelligent people out there. Please start working on the problem while it is still theoretical.

Being Agile: In software and life

     In February of 2001, seventeen people met to talk, have fun, and find common ground. They were concerned with the reality that there was so much software being produced that was of low-quality, overly-complicated, and overworking people to a degree that was not reasonable. Out of that gathering, they released a document called "The Agile Manifesto". The four core values are usually summarized as:

• individuals and interactions over processes and tools;
• working software over comprehensive documentation;
• customer collaboration over contract negotiation; and.
• responding to change over following a plan.

     There are a number of books that go into depth about various aspects of this philosophy. I am just going to delve into a couple of the primary differences and obstacles when moving from a "waterfall" process (one thing follows another in a given order and rhythm).

     If a person, or group of people, is working on something that has been built (or something very similar) hundreds, or thousands, of time (think of a factory line or processing a standard form) then it is fairly simple to know what is needed, when, and how long it will take. Most software projects are new -- it has never been accomplished before. There is no complete knowledge of what is needed or how it should be designed. There is no knowledge of how many people will take how long to complete it at a reasonable quality level.

     Traditional methodologies say "OK. We don't know. Guess. But we will hold you to that guess and you will build what we have initially agreed to build. When something goes wrong, expect 70-hour work weeks and it will be released even if it doesn't work." One major software company was famous (infamous?) for releasing software with major problems -- using sales from the first release to work on fixing those bugs in future releases. (In general, the software eventually became very usable.)

     Most people would agree that documentation is useful. There is external documentation -- how to use the software or how other software modules should interact with the software (called an Application Programming Interface -- API). There is internal documentation -- how is it programmed and how the code works. Both are useful and both are reasonable.

     Since there is no way to know what the final product will be, documentation should be done in phases. A skeleton -- sparse but sufficient information to start with -- should happen at the first. Having a fully "complete" document at the beginning is a waste of effort and may be counter-productive leading to an inferior and non-competitive product.

     The API should be as clear as currently known -- and changes sent out to all people/groups that need to know as they occur. How to use (the User Interface (UI)) should follow the same process, initially as it is and notifying the testing and product marketing people whenever it changes. The design and features may need to be modified according to current market conditions or feedback from potential customers. Internal documentation should start off general and become more and more specific as the process continues with the final documentation reflecting the real state of the software.

     One situation in which the Agile methodology is frequently crippled is when the marketing/sales area does not follow along in the methodology. If marketing/sales continues to have releases at predetermined times with feature sets advertised well in advance of those dates, much of the Agile methodology with the developers will not be achievable.

     Huge amounts of overhead will be created. This overhead is involved with keeping track of delivery dates and the current state of features. This is contradictory to the original design, and purpose, of the Agile methodology which understands that dates of "completion" of features/products, of acceptable quality, cannot be predetermined. Dates will be missed and/or quality will suffer.

     The movement towards "subscription" software (which is often associated with "Continuous Delivery") could ease this desire to hang onto fixed releases dates and contents since subscribers will always get the best currently available as it is released. Alas, even with subscriptions, marketing/sales needs to reorient the way they present the product.

     So, how does this apply to life? In most of the technological nations, life is ruled by the clock. There are deadlines. The trains run on time (or try to). Schedules determine the work day. Reservations are made. We make plans that may be very detailed.

     But problems occur. Things don't go "as planned". There is extra stress to the point of not being healthy. Flexibility and the ability to go with the moment are methods that can be of great help within our world -- even to the point of changing society to be less clock-oriented. Being agile helps.

A Six Month Reserve: A good goal for everyone

     One of the first suggestions that a financial advisor gives when you sit down with her to determine a savings/investment plan is -- have six months net income in cash for emergencies. Just past tax time in the U.S., my reserves are down but I can squeak by for a number of months with no added luxuries (no purchases, no special food, no takeout/curbside food, no presents, ...)

     I am one of the lucky ones. As we are witnessing in the U.S. (and probably many other areas of the world) people do not have six months of reserves in general. In fact, most people don't even have one month of reserves in savings. Going even further, there are probably a lot of people that are out of money by the time they receive their next paycheck -- living "paycheck to paycheck".

     This is a primary side-effect of steadily growing income inequality. Back in my earlier blog on living wages, I put forth the way people can determine what is a living wage for a person in a given geographical area.  Many people in the U.S. do not make a living wage. If you don't have enough money to pay for all of your necessities, then you will NOT be able to save money in addition. When there is a little bit extra, it is so tempting to use it to buy something desired that has been postponed (perhaps for a very long time). The more people who do not make a living wage, the more people who CANNOT prepare a financial cushion to ride out a disaster (pandemic, economic recession or depression, long-term unemployment, ...).

     OK. You make a living wage. Do you have that six month reserve built up? No? Well, in the first place, it may take a long time to build up a six month reserve even if you put away 1/10 of your salary each month (or more, recommended if you are able). Second, problems happen -- health problems are particularly possible in the U.S. and, even if insured, they are a large financial drain. (If you are NOT insured, welcome to the world of bankruptcy.) Or perhaps your car broke down and needs major repairs. Your parents need to be moved to your home for you to take care of them? Lots of possibilities to drain the reserve and hard to build it up.

     Let's say that no disaster occurs and you have a bit extra each month beyond living expenses -- maybe even a bit more than living plus a few luxuries expenses. What do you do with that money? When I was growing up, I was always in a savings mode. My brother wasn't quite that way so I was around as his personal bank. He often paid me back but it could not be relied upon. In our schools (and, often, in our homes), we are not taught how to handle money -- how to budget, how to avoid usury, how to save, how to invest, and so forth. A lot of celebrities and sports stars fall into this trap -- live high but when they break a leg or lose their popularity, they have not saved while they could. Some do -- they should be the most revered role models and not the ones that spend the most and are the flashiest.

     These examples, and the above essay, are about individuals. What about businesses? Well, quite a few large, often multinational, corporations have "deep pockets" and can take care of expenses, and carry on with business, for months (sometimes years) -- which doesn't mean they may not make business adjustments in anticipation of near-term or long-term needs. Other businesses have a credit line upon which they can draw for a few months of survival. But the small business is really in much the same condition as an individual.

     Small businesses often have a very small profit margin. Similar to an individual, the required cash flow may be considered to be "living wage" -- with any profit above and beyond. They, also, should try to save 1/10 (or more) of the profit each month to build up a reserve. But, as it is with an individual, it will take a long time to build up multi-month reserves. And, even worse than with an individual, many other people's incomes are also dependent.

     And the moral of the story? People need living wages plus. People, and businesses, need financial training. And saving for the future, when possible, is a very important item for the budget.

Flattening that curve -- what does it mean?

[ Numbers are as accurate as possible at time of writing -- but continually changing]

     At this moment, much of the world is on "lockdown" -- isolated from one another and moving around only if a person is categorized as performing "essential" work or if a person must leave the house to perform an "essential" activity (obtain food, medicine, repair, ... as defined per state or country). An essential worker is a person who is performing that essential work.

     At the "front lines" are the medical workers, ambulance drivers, ERTs, and often police and fire department workers. Being at the front line means that you are being confronted, and working, with those who ARE sick -- not just someone who MIGHT be sick (which is about everyone). Others who are providing essential services -- grocery store workers, postal and delivery people, sanitation workers, truckers, agricultural and meat processing workers, pharmacists, people who work in take-out/curbside/delivery of food, and many others -- are interacting with people who might be sick. In some of these cases, because they are interacting with so many different people, their personal risk (and, indirectly, risk of their families and others with whom they may be in regular close contact) may be high.

     A total lockdown (nobody contacts anyone else), can stop the spread of a virus (in the current case, covid-19, but applicable to any viral pandemic). But such an absolute isolation would cause many deaths -- directly from the illness (not being able to go to a hospital) and indirectly from lack of food and other needed supplies. And testing would still be needed -- somehow -- to determine when it was safe to release the lockdown. Not an easy scenario and if you miss even one case before you ease the lockdown -- back to square one.

     So, we go towards the above, essential allowed, lockdowns. This cannot stop the spread of the virus but it can SLOOOOOW down the spread of the virus.

     Yes, until a vaccine is approved and administered, people will continue to get ill. Slowing down the spread is called "flattening the curve". The main reason for this is that if spread is allowed to go unchecked it will overwhelm the available healthcare system. The Center for Disease Control (CDC)  has the following diagram:

In simpler terms, the graph says that you want to delay the period at which you have the most active cases of people not being well AND you want that highest number of active cases to be as small as possible.

     Healthcare involves hospital space (beds), sufficient staff (doctors, nurses, administrative, ...), equipment (ventilators, masks, protection hoods, ...) and medicines. Overwhelming the capacity in any of these areas will put the "overflow" into danger mode. At that point, the staff will have to "triage" the infected people with treatment going to the most badly infected and the rest will have to hope to survive on their own.

     Much of the time, equipment and medicines are insufficient but there isn't much that a regular citizen can do about that situation. Staff, unfortunately, will fluctuate as people get sick and (hopefully) recover -- proper protective equipment can help with that. What people can best have an effect on is the number of infected cases -- and that can be done by reducing the chance of an infected person infecting other people.

     Hospital beds are easy to count, so lets use those numbers to determine the maximum "peak" of the curve that will not overwhelm the system. Note that lack of staff, equipment, and medicines may DECREASE the maximum that the healthcare system can handle.

     Let us say that, in my county, the hospitals have 617 beds (which should be close to accurate, according to noted average numbers of beds -- 1.9/1000 times 325 (my county has approximately 325,000 people)). Approximately 2/3 of those beds are already occupied at a given "normal" period of time. That leaves 207 beds available for emergency needs. If not too many health care workers get sick (such that we are unable to staff for a fully case load) then as long as the number of hospitalized cases stay under 207, it can be handled.

     One additional factor is what percentage of cases need to be hospitalized? All cases need to be identified and treated but not all require a hospital bed. Without universal, daily (or every two days), testing precise numbers are not possible -- because there is no way to know exactly how many people are infected. Some early reports indicated that MAYBE 1/5 of the cases need to be hospitalized. Therefore, a number greater than 1035 cases will overwhelm the number of hospital beds (1035 / 5 = 207) in my county. Recorded numbers (as of today) of cases for my county is 536 -- so we are not overwhelmed as of yet but our numbers continue to increase daily. We are still very much in danger.

     If we apply the same formulas to the situation in New York, we see (as of today) that there are approximately 270 hospital beds per 100,000 (2.7/1000). If 2/3 of these beds are already occupied, that leaves us with 90 beds per 100,000 As of today, there are 1302 cases per 100,000. 1/5 of 1302 is 260 expected hospitalized cases. We see that New York state has far exceeded the number of hospital beds (almost 3 times). And, New York may have 270 hospital beds per 100,000 for the STATE but hospital beds and cases are not equally spread out within the state. Thus, the New York City metro area is in much worse condition than what would be seen from the initial formula. That is why so many temporary hospital beds are being set up -- but just adding beds does not add equipment, medicine, or staff.

     What happens if we do exceed the number that can be handled? We can see that in areas of the country that have had cases rise out of control for too long. Death rates rise. In Italy, this has also happened. The same holds for cruise ships and other confined areas such as retirement homes.

     So, when can an "essentials only" lockdown be cleared? This is associated with the idea of "herd immunity" where the contagion factor (how easily the disease is passed along to others) is associated with how many people are no longer able to be infected (recovered or naturally immune or vaccinated). The contagion factor is improved by isolation and lockdown. There are too many factors involved for me to even venture a guess.

     In the Spanish Flu Pandemic (1918 through 1920), there were "waves" of infection. Lockdowns, followed by ease of restriction, followed by increasing infection, followed by lockdowns, followed by ease of restriction. Health care is potentially much better than in 1918 but many political and economic factors are involved with treatments and population restriction.

     As mentioned earlier, full accurate numbers are not available. We don't really know just how many people are, or have been, infected. We don't know how many people who have died and had their reasons marked down in error. But we do have ways to slow the rate of spread of infection and we have real world examples of what happens if the rate of infection overwhelms the healthcare available.

     Best of futures to all. Stay safe.

Short-term and Long-term planning: everything in its season

     You are crossing a street at a crosswalk and a bus is hurtling towards you. Short-term planning says to get out of the way of the bus immediately. Long-term planning may have to do with bus lanes, protection on the crosswalks, a pedestrian bridge, better signals (both directions) or something else that will reduce the chance of this danger from reoccurring. If you don't follow through on the short-term planning then you may not be around to take care of long-term planning. If you don't get long-term planning underway then, even if you successfully move out of the way, eventually someone will be hit.
     When a farmer wants to plant a seed, they must wait until the time is right. But first, they must prepare the soil. Preparation of the soil, planting, weeding, harvesting becomes a cyclical process with seeds from the harvest (perhaps) being used in the next planting. The farmer must be aware of how the crops interact with the soil so that the cycle can continue. Fertilizer may be needed on a regular basis -- or perhaps the crops rotated with nitrogen-fixing plants to restore the fertility of the land. Care of the land is in long-term planning. Short-term is each step in the process leading to the short-term goal of the harvest. If the soil is not taken care of, it will eventually not be able to be used to grow crops. If the crops are not grown, there will be no food for the people to take care of the land.
     In many situations, long-term planning is set by a goal. Short-term planning takes you along a path to reach that goal. The path sustains the journey to the goal. There should always be a goal and there should always be a journey. In order for this to happen, long-term planning must adapt based on the journey.
     For businesses, the long-term goal is often called a "mission statement" while the context of the business within society is called a "vision statement". In some cases, the "vision statement" is also indicative of the lifetime of the organization. For example, the vision statement of the Alzheimer's Association is "a world without Alzheimer's disease". Once Alzheimer's disease is eliminated, the reason of existence for the Alzheimer's Association is gone.
     For this reason, an ongoing mission statement should either be prepared to be modified by the journey or it should be so encompassing that the journey will never end. If, for example, a Cancer opposing organizing wanted a statement which would not arrive (at least not in my ability to dream), they would expand to "a world with everyone mentally and physically well". Once cancer was conquered, the organization can continue to the next physical disease -- or the next mental ailment -- and move forward.
     Commercial businesses also my have mission statements and vision statements. There are some truly inspiring mission and vision statements. A problem exists, unfortunately, in that the business must survive in order to attempt to achieve their mission statement. This usually involves cash flow since, in our current society, people and companies need income to survive. Short-term survival can blind a person, or a company, to the needs of long-term survival and both can affect the feasibility of the mission or vision statement. It is all too easy to narrow one's perceptions to the next moment and not evaluate the actions according to the broader statements. In a more personal context, the Biblical quote arises that "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak".
     We can only do our best and attempt to keep our long-term plans in mind while dealing with short-term needs.

Less is more: The Case for Minimalism

     When we talk about "less" and "more", it has to be applied to something. In the case of minimalism, it can be said to apply to complexity, accumulation, and "overhead" -- and, likely, many other things. There may be a better word than overhead -- happy to hear suggestions. Overhead is that extra amount (of time, distance, effort) that is required beyond what is needed for what you really want to accomplish.
     It is rare that a week goes by without some (hopefully small) "glitch" occurring to make me aware how complicated "normal" things in my life really are -- which usually claims an hour or two of my schedule. This past week, it was a matter of rain causing a short in the exterior line connections for our Internet connection -- it triggered the "Ground Fault Interrupter" (GFI) breaker of the outlet to which the optical interface device was plugged. Luckily, repetition of specific problems make them quicker to figure out. (The first time it occurred, it took about six hours including an hour and a half on the phone with my Internet provider.)
     Just tackling the INSIDE configuration of our Internet connection, our house has routers (WiFi and Ethernet -- same devices, different connection methods), gateway, and optical network interface. Plus, there are all of the cables, power and signal, connecting everything. During that first (six hour) session of determining the cause of our network failure, we analyzed each segment of this configuration, one at a time. At the end of the period with the Internet service provider, we had eliminated everything that could be checked remotely -- so a service call was set up. And, so it would have remained if I hadn't been sure that there was a contradiction between their tests and my understanding of the network. Their test of the optical network interface was from the network side. But, it turned out that the GFI had popped that time also. From the network side it "worked" fine -- but, without proper power, it did not actually function.
     So, do I want to eliminate my Internet connection to simplify my life? No, I don't. However, I remain fully aware of how much simpler it is to take a book from a shelf and read it as opposed to all that can go wrong with streaming a video.
     In the region of accumulation, we recently moved to another place which has 40% less square footage than the previous place. We spent four months just trying to reduce stuff to be able to fit (concentrating on the larger furniture items). We STILL have a garage full at the new place which, especially with my wife's efforts, are being slowly sorted through. Our next place (once our younger sons have moved out) will probably be 40 to 50% less in size than this place (giving a net reduction of around 2/3 over a space of five or six years). We are trying to follow "the houseboat rule". This came from a friend who had a houseboat on Lake Union near Seattle. If you bring something onto the houseboat then something has to leave the houseboat -- otherwise you would eventually find yourself sinking into the lake. The strange thing is that the more things we get rid of the easier it is to do. (Not easy -- just easier.) It is a matter of reaching the point of no longer considering whether an item is useful or not -- they often are -- but, rather, a matter of whether we want to haul it around, find space for it, and have our children have to deal with it after our passage.
     I worked remotely, from my home, for over twenty years. It works really great for someone who is self-organized AND has a tightly focused goal or assignment. I was helping to create a large portfolio of software for my company. I worked hard and, sometimes, long. Working remotely was great for the goal. But, when we had created our portfolio, and did not know quite what was best for us to do next, working remotely was not as effective. Yet, at present, the majority of jobs in my work arena include a 3-hour round-trip commute (in less-than-pleasant traffic). Three hours of commuting for nine hours of work -- or a 25% overhead (3 hours of the 12 total). Many people do it and, perhaps, I will have to do it also at some point. But do I want that? Not particularly.
     Thoreau once talked about how there are equivalencies -- how much time must you work to be able to afford a ticket on a train to somewhere versus how much time needed to walk there. Of course, the actual economics depend on the time in history and the economic conditions of the specific area. We trade off the convenience (when it all works) of electronic media versus the simplicity (but bulk) of physical media. We accumulate things but, at some point, we can no longer "take it with us" -- so, why accumulate? We spend hours getting to and from a job. Should we move? What is the effect of moving?
     Minimalism is not "the" answer for everyone -- but we should all be conscious of our choices and the real cost of our choices.

Fahrenheit 451 : Levels of censorship

     I just finished listening to the audiobook for Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. I read a dozen, or more, books each month but I have to listen to books (for obvious reasons) when I am driving. In the set of CDs in the audiobook, there was an afterword where the narrator relayed Ray Bradbury's thoughts and writings about some of the motivations for the book as well as some views about types of censorship. These items jogged my thoughts as I rrecognized that there certainly is not just ONE form of censorship. They follow the range from self-censorship to George Orwell's Newspeak from 1984.

Self-censorship. Everyone censors their own reading. There is no alternative. There are between 600,000 to a million books published (many self-published nowadays) each year. I read a lot. Some people read more. But, no one could possibly read every book. How do we censor? First, of course, we are not aware of all of those 100s of thousands of books. Maybe we encounter, or a friend talks about, or we see a reference to, a few thousand books a year (some of us much fewer, others more). Of those, some are interested in only a few topics, others many. Maybe we don't like (or do like) the cover or flyleaf. Maybe we have a favorite author -- or someone we refuse to read. At any rate, from those million books, I choose 130 or so to read each year (my wife reads more).

Community censorship. This is likely to be the type of censorship that most people think about. A group of people in a town come together and decide that some book is not something they want others to easily read -- so they try (or succeed) to force the local library/bookstore to not carry the book. Or a CD. Or a Podcast. The community can encompass a neighborhood, an ethnic group, a city, a state, or even an entire country. At this level of censorship, a group is actively trying to prevent others from making their own choices as to what they want to read -- but it isn't illegal to read it.

Politically reinforced censorship. This does not necessarily mean that a particular political party is trying to ban a book (although it is possible). This is when the community decides to make it a legal issue. Not only is it made difficult to read, it is actively made illegal to read and, perhaps, to purchase or possess. They may even decide to burn books or otherwise get rid of copies. This is the level of censorship described in Fahrenheit 451. Note that, in Ray Bradbury's book, it is not imposed "top down" from the government but "bottom up" (from the citizens) based on not wanting to be disturbed, or "made" unhappy, by having to think about issues and conflicting ideas. It also applies to such book burnings as happened during WW II by the Nazi party in Germany (which might be considered "top down" but are authorized by passive, or active, participation by the citizens).

_________

     The above types of censorship are of the "all or none" type. The book can be read or not -- but the book, itself, stays unaltered. The contents can also be censored such that language is changed, or parts are eliminated, or areas extended. Such falls into the same categories as the above but apply only to portions.

__________

Editorial censorship. This can be done by the author, the editor, or the publisher. The author does it as a matter of course during her, or his, process of determining the "best" state for the material to be presented. Words and sentences are changed, added, deleted, put into different spots. Except for a very, very few authors, there are various drafts of material before it is presented in a form meant to be published.
     If an author is well-known, or with a great publishing record, an editor will usually give, at most, recommendations. (There have been times when I have read books by well-known authors when I really have wished the editor had been more insistent on changes.) More often, changes suggested/required by an editor become part of an argument between author and editor. The less published the author, the less clout they have. Changes by the editor may be involved with grammar, spelling, flow, content or whatever else the editor thinks is important. For one of my books, the editor slashed out a number of sections in order to shorten the book -- leaving references in without the material to which they referred.
     Finally, at the publisher, they may require changes to meet their publishing criteria. If it requires substantial changes to be readable then they will probably just reject it -- unless the name of the author is considered to be more valuable than the content.

Community censorship by parts. This falls into two categories -- meeting current socially acceptable standards or a desire to change history such that current social standards are applied to works written during older periods. For current standards, it will be usually be applied by the editor and/or publisher.
     There are instances, however, when the actual material is not the objection -- it is just the fact that the author is not part of the group of which they are writing. A man writing about a woman; a woman writing about a man; a white woman writing about a black man; a Christian person writing about a Muslim person, ... Certainly, an author should always be careful not to generalize about their own groups or about other groups. But, every person in the world is unique. If we are not allowed to write about anyone different, then the only acceptable writings are autobiographies without reference to anyone with whom we have interacted.
     In 1904, a series about a family called The Bobbsey Twins was started. They were children's books about a family that had adventures and vacations in different places. In 1960, the early books were rewritten. Part of the rewrite was to bring them "up to date" -- eliminate the horse and buggies and bring in automobiles and so forth. Other parts, however, were to rewrite for current social standards. The rewritten books looked very little like the originals. Mark Twain's books are often heavily criticized for language and for interactions between characters -- not because they are not accurate for the time but because they ARE accurate for the time. In the comments of Ray Bradbury relayed at the end of the audiobooks for Fahrenheit 451, the narrator talked about how many groups wanted Ray Bradbury to change his book for their desires -- add more female characters, shorten sections, add new section, ...

Politically reinforced censorship by parts. This is active rewriting of history. George Orwell's book 1984 goes into this in great depth. However, it has also been done by various governments -- Stalin, within the USSR, is documented as having destroyed many writings and replaced them with other writings that give different accounts of events. He would also change photos -- not with the degree of credibility that can be done now but sufficiently well that it lent doubt to the original records. Some state governments change the wordings within history books to match what they want to present. As the ability, and ease, to create "deep fakes" accelerates, this will become a greater and greater danger.