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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luck: factors not under our control

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a Technoglot?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catalyst: Sometimes presence is all that is needed

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Burden of Responsibility: cleaning up the messes?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digital property: An opportunity for a marketing advantage

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Energy Transfer: Fuel for Climate Change

 

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

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

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

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

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

Tech scalpers: attacks and defenses

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structures: Scaffolds for growth

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

Substitution: A spotlight on biases and prejudices

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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