Taking and Receiving, Giving and Relinquishing: A matter of flow

 

     "It is better to give than receive." Although not universally accepted, a lot of us would agree with that statement. But, if there is no one who is willing to receive, is it possible to give? And if that is the case, isn't receiving just as important as the giving?

     "Don't be a taker." Once again, not universally agreed upon, though most would agree with the sentiment. But, is not a taker another name for a receiver?

     As an eclectic student of languages, I am always struck by the number of synonyms and antonyms for words. If you go to a thesaurus, you will find lists of such. When I look over the lists, I find myself sometimes saying "yes, that is very close" and, at other times, "why did they list that -- that doesn't seem very close to the original word at all." Sometimes, it is a matter of context and specific definition of the word. Words often have multiple meanings listed within a dictionary listing -- and the order of usage/recognition varies with the time in history as well as environment of the user.

     So, let's look at a few of the listed synonyms for "taker". It lists such words as parasite, scrounger, and dependent. It does also list the word "receiver". But if the word "receiver" is researched, it comes up with words such as beneficiary, possessor, or payee. There is definitely a different feeling to the words. So, even though a thesaurus may indicate some overlap between taker and receiver, they are used very differently. The same type of result can be found when researching the words giver and relinquisher.

     What is the difference? I would suggest that it is a matter of flow. Something will move from the giver towards the taker. It will also move from the relinquisher towards the receiver. But, in the case of the taker, the impetus of the movement is from the point of view of the taker. The taker is reaching toward the original possessor and bringing it towards them. The original possessor may, or may not, be willing for this movement.

     In the case of the receiver, it is implied that the receiver is NOT actively trying to obtain the object. The movement is being initiated by the giver.

     To rephrase common phrases -- to give is divine but, in order to give, there must
                                                        be a receiver.

                                                     -- when taking without permission there may be
                                                         relinquishing but not giving.

The USSR and Eastern Europe: A personal historical perspective

 

     I debated writing this blog entry as I prefer to stay away from topics that would be considered political (though I have found that there is nothing that cannot be considered political by someone). My blogs have moved away from the technology explanation motif (primarily because of lack of feedback as to what areas were of interest) but the core reason of a desire to improve communication still exists -- and that is what I am trying to foster with this post.

     There is NO justification for Putin's invasion of Ukraine -- particularly with the focus on the civilian population and infrastructure. But there can be a certain degree of understanding.

     Back in 1987 (35 years ago now), I visited the Soviet Union with particular concentration on the Moscow, Leningrad/St. Petersburg, and Latvia (Riga) areas. This was in the latter days of the Soviet Union when "glasnost" was being heavily promoted by the Soviet government but the citizens still only half-believed it. A certain degree of highly-supervised, and watched, coordination between Soviet groups and external organizations was being encouraged with the hopes of eventual mutually beneficial exchanges. I was part of such an outreach.

     Note that Vladimir Putin was part of the KGB during this period of time.

     Moscow and Leningrad/St. Petersburg had many wonderful aspects -- and a few not quite so wonderful -- but I cannot claim to have any significant insight into what was/was not going on there. Many others in the world certainly have more useful contributions. I will say that the tentative balancing act of believing/not-believing in "glasnost" was definitely present within the citizens of those regions.

     However, visitation of Riga and the Latvian countryside gave much more information and insight. The groups in Latvia were more willing to be open -- probably because they felt they had much more to gain and a little less to lose. The beaches near Riga were not open to human use because of pollution. And the discussions, that we had there, laid bare the reality that Latvia (and Estonia and Lithuania) were used as expendable regions where central authorities in the Russian regions could locate heavy industry which had more severe environmental impact. Although I had no direct experience with other countries in Eastern Europe, it is good to recall that Chernobyl, and its problems, is located in Ukraine.

     It is difficult to understand the mindset between the primary area of Russia and that of the satellite regions of the Soviet Union without discussion of the "fifth line" (pyatny linov). All Soviet citizens had an internal passport and, on the fifth line of that internal passport, was "nationality". Being Jewish was considered a "nationality". There may have been other non-geographic nationalities also used but I have no personal knowledge of that. My Russian language tutor (of Jewish heritage) had been "fifth lined" out of Leningrad. The Soviets eliminated unemployment by making it illegal -- but that didn't mean that there weren't people who did not have jobs. Job or no job, it was still necessary to have income to live within the Soviet Union. Thus my professor's, and her husband's, emigration.

     The "fifth line" was used in various ways within the Soviet Union. One large way was within quota systems for various organizations and academic institutions. Such places had strict quotas based upon how many of each "nationality" would be permitted beyond the Russian fifth-lined citizens (rarely affected by quota). Belarus had a somewhat favored secondary status with larger quotas but all non-Russian "nationalities" were kept lower in proportion to those of official "Russian" nationality. There was a certain tendency for people to try to marry others of "Russian" nationality so that their children could have a "Russian" fifth line.

     Thus, non-Russian citizens were kept in less influential proportions to that of Russian citizens of the Soviet Union. And their geographical origins (in Eastern Europe, as said earlier I have no direct knowledge of behavior in other areas of the Soviet Empire) were used as expendable areas. These "buffer" areas could, and were, used in ways that was not desired in the primary Russian area of the Soviet Union.

     But, an even greater use of this expendable buffer region was as a Russian-controlled buffer between the Soviet Union and the non-Soviet-controlled countries. Russia could use these countries as as a buffer boundary and could locate military and other defenses within them. NATO countries could be directly bordered without direct exposure of Russian soil.

     And that is a large goal of this invasion. A territory to possess and use and provide closer access to NATO regions without direct exposure to the Russian central areas. If the infrastructure or countryside is destroyed in the process, it is not important. That is not the primary goal.

     And, as has been pointed out by some apologists who want to find a justification for the invasion, it is also why Russia does not want any countries bordering it to be part of NATO. It wants that expendable buffer. If guaranteed to not be part of NATO then some of that fear might ease -- but does not provide Ukraine the security they deserve.

Personnel Shifts: Continuous adaptation to the future

 

     If you enter into a grocery store (my son and I do so every Sunday at 6am to beat the crowds), you will have noticed that a growing number of "self-checkout" systems ("SCOs") are available. Sometimes these SCOs are oriented towards a limited number of items ("15 or under"), sometimes they are an alternative to the regular full-service checkout lanes. Occasionally, when I have only a half dozen items, or so, I am led away from the full-service lane (by a store employee) over to an SCO. I almost never voluntarily choose them -- because I know that the number of human cashiers are reduced as a shifting of resources.

     Is this bad? Bank tellers shifting to ATMs and online banking? Grocery store cashiers giving way to SCOs? The general shift from "brick-and-board" physical stores to online shopping or automated inventory and checkout systems? Automated package, and luggage, sorting at parcel and luggage handling locations? And so on and so on.

     There are shifts in the economy and work force taking place. Many of these shifts are due to automation. There are a couple of primary effects of this ongoing shift. First, the lower skill jobs are disappearing -- but higher skill jobs are being created. This is not 1-to-1 (1:1). For every five lower skill jobs that are replaced by automation, one high skill job is created. I am making up this ratio. It will depend on the exact industry and other factors. But it is still the situation that fewer high skill jobs are created than are lost from the lower skill job pool. That's a large part of the reason why there is a shift towards automation -- to save labor costs.

     The second shift can be interpreted from the above but it is rarely openly acknowledged. As more and more lower skill jobs are replaced by automation, the number of jobs that lower skill workers can qualify for -- and, especially, that pay a living wage -- goes down. There are unemployed people who do not qualify for a position in which they can support themselves and that number increases every year.

     Educate them! True, that can make more people, who used to be lower skill, able to join the higher skill work force. But, as the number of people needed for businesses continues to decrease, we end up with more people without positions to occupy. Education, by itself, only gives the possibility of having more higher skilled people without jobs rather than lower skill people without jobs.

     One possibility is to spread existing work around to more people. If each position in the economy occupies a person for fewer hours, then the economy allows for work by more people, If a company needs a labor force of 800 people-hours per week, there can be 20 people working 40 hours/week or there can be 32 people working 25 hours/week or even 40 people working 20 hours/week. Note that these people still need to be making living wages (and, with their education and training, likely will expect more).

     Another possibility is for people to set up businesses for themselves! That is happening and it may all work out. Certainly my crystal ball doesn't have fewer cracks in it than anyone else's. Such a shift requires economies moving away from physical consumerism; factories will continue to have fewer and fewer needed workers and "brick-and-board" businesses will move away from lower skilled personnel. Note that moving away from physical consumerism also has side-benefits for the environment.

     These newly invented businesses will have to deal with non-physical merchandise. Skills, learning, ideas, coaching, artistry, creativity -- a new paradigm for the economy. These new entrepreneurs need different training, and ways of thinking, from that which is presently being presented within the education system. Learning facts becomes less important. Learning how to research, and interpret, facts becomes vital.

          Jobs that are not cost-effective to automate (at least we are not at that economic tipping point as of yet) will still exist for the indefinite future. And there will continue to be people who will not, or cannot, obtain skills that will work within the new economy or the higher skill level traditional positions. But they cannot work 40 to 60 hours and still not be able to afford food, clothing, medical care, and shelter. It is a recipe of desperation. We may not often put people in jail for stealing a loaf of bread, like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, but people who cannot succeed in living legally will find a way to live.

The Passenger Syndrome: Along for the ride

 

     I am not particularly fond of driving -- not because I mind doing it myself but because it is necessary to look five directions at once, at all times, to see what the rest of the traffic (in cars or on foot) are doing. Give me a road without other traffic and I am happy to head off for the hills and beyond. These conditions usually take place at night (or in adverse weather conditions -- in which case there is less traffic but it is necessary to watch those others even more carefully). Less traffic, easier on the eyes, and less likely to trigger my mild narcolepsy.

     But I can't always get my preferences -- so I drive along in the traffic as it is. I attempt to ignore the car behind me that is 10 feet away from my back bumper while driving at 60 mph. I try to anticipate what merging traffic is going to do and attempt to leave them a proper gap so they can merge. I negotiate changing lanes with some cars going 15 miles per hour over the speed limit and those few who go five to ten miles an hour UNDER the limit. And I usually get to my destination. At which point, my wife usually says "that was easy". Spoken like a true passenger.

     This "passenger syndrome" happens in many parts of our lives.  Business, personal, recreational, sport spectator and player, during cooking and cleaning, and wherever one person is doing the active portion while others are there to enjoy the endpoints.

     There are certainly situations where multiple people work on a project and it is quite possible to appreciate what each person has done -- or to consider what others are doing as less important and less difficult. That reaction is based on internal reasons and are, in part, dependent on how much experience the others have in working within the other roles. In the best of situations, each truly understands that while it is easier for one person, with experience and knowledge, to do something than it would be for another person without such -- that does NOT make it "easy". The group is leveraging the skills, talents, and experiences of each to make it a much better joint project.

     But not all work items are joint ones. If the chef comes up with a magnificent meal and they bring it onto the table and flourish it with a bow then most will truly enjoy it. But, if someone is loitering in the kitchen while the chef is doing their measuring, sifting, whisking, blending, preparing, and cooking then the more experienced, and skillful, the chef is -- the "easier" it will appear. Unless the observer has tried that recipe for themselves, watch out that they don't come out with "well, that certainly looked easy". Shoveling snow is always easy for the spectator.

     There have been discussions in LinkedIn, and other business forums, about the concept of paying for the product rather than paying for the time. Within a given time, a wide difference of activity is possible depending on experience, skill, and talent. One person might do the task in three hours and another might do it in ten minutes. Is that ten minutes work worth the same amount of compensation as the other's three hours? If both situations produce the same result with the same quality then why shouldn't they each deserve the same compensation? This might mean that the experienced/skilled/talented individual gets an effective rate of 18 times that of the less experienced person -- but is that not fair?

     In the upcoming era of remote work, and hybrid/blended work this is something to keep solidly in mind. Evaluate according to the work accomplished. But be careful not to treat it as fully equivalent. That one person may have been able to do the work in 1/18 of the time but if you try to give them 18 times the amount of work start sniffing around, and prepare for the fire sprinkler to go off, as you herd them into an early burnout. Time elapsed is not the same as mental (and sometimes physical) energy needed.

I can't find anyone for my posted position: really?

 

     For the past 15 years or more, I have seen various comments "I just can't find anyone for my position". Really? I suspect that you are continuing some long-time inappropriate practices.

     If a position is entry-level, and is posted (and salaried) as entry-level, then THERE ARE NO JOB-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. If there are requirements, then it is NOT "entry-level". Most of you have heard, perhaps even encountered, "how can I get a job without experience when all of the jobs expect experience?" A vicious cycle and perpetuated by many companies. Once again, entry-level means no job-specific requirements.

     Now this does not mean you have to hire anybody that applies. There are some basic skills that anyone graduating from high school should bring to the work arena. The ability to read and write. If the person cannot do that, there are lots of programs available to learn. Basic arithmetic, ditto. Nowadays, the lack of fear of computers is a requirement. Once again, lots of courses in basic computer literacy are available. Local libraries, senior citizen centers, and community colleges all have them available -- often free. Some jobs require the ability to lift certain weights -- and that should be in the job description. There may be requirements for hygiene, especially if the person is expected to interact with the general public. Job-required social skills may be needed but note that, for many positions that do not interact with the public, social skills may be up for negotiation if you want to keep the candidate pool full.

     So, in summary, entry-level can require indications of the basic ability to acquire job-related skills -- but should not require any of those job-related skills. Otherwise, it is NOT entry-level and should not be posted as such or paid as such.

     There are also listings on the other end of the spectrum. A job listing might have a list of 20 very specific skills and experiences often based on what the person leaving that position had (even if they never actually used that skill/experience within the position). Every additional specific skill you add reduces the potential pool of possibilities. IF you really want to increase the number of potential candidates, then you shift the specifics to abilities and you shift items from "required" to "desired" if they aren't needed from day one. If you need experience dealing with project management software -- say that -- don't say a specific project management software package unless being able to immediately launch is really that important -- and recognize you have reduced your candidate pool. Need object-oriented programming experience -- say that -- don't list a specific language unless it is of such importance for immediate launch that reduction in the candidate pool is acceptable.

     I have run across many position descriptions that say "5 years experience needed in specific language ABC" and language ABC has only existed for three years. If I didn't hear "we can't find anyone" so often from those companies, I would laugh. But I usually sniffle a bit out of sadness for both the companies and the great potential candidates not making it over the ridiculous hurdles.

     Another area of HR problematics is having a "hidden list". There is a list of "required" characteristics/abilities (which may, or may not, be appropriate to needs). There is a list of "preferred/desired" characteristics/abilities. Then there is the "hidden list" that are NOT in the job description but which will cause the candidate to be rejected without further examination. We will all hope that sexuality/gender/ethnicity/pigmentation/age/etc. are not on your particular hidden list but if they are then you deserve to not find anyone as you are eliminating potential candidates based on irrelevant characteristics (and also, likely, reducing potential customers and clients).

     But there are also often other items -- not exactly irrelevant (though many can be argued to not be really needed) -- on the hidden list such as specific requirements not listed or the fact that the person must be able to work without sponsorship or that they must live in a specific area. There can be legitimate requirements that are not posted in the job listing BUT if they are required and they are not part of the listing then you are wasting your time, potential candidates' time, AND decreasing your candidate pool. Put legitimate "hidden list" items on the published requirements.

     So, now you have a short list of "required" qualifications -- is your incoming filter set up that way? Or are those "desired" (and "hidden") qualifications kicking resumes, and potential star employees, out and away?

     Once upon a time, when I was hunting for a position, I applied to a LOT (I won't say the exact number because I don't want anyone fainting) of positions over a period of years. For each of the positions to which I applied, I had all of the "required" qualifications (and, yes, I had had my resume worked over by two different theoretically expert resume writers), but I received responses to less than 5% of the applications. Why? I can't say for certain but I certainly didn't feel sorry for those companies when I saw the job posting out there for an additional three to six months. Such still occurs. I feel no sympathy.

In summary:

• Entry-level positions should not require job-specific skills.
  
  
• Search for abilities rather than specifics unless you are explicitly willing to have the tradeoff of a reduced candidacy base.
  
  
• Make double-dare certain that the required skills/abilities/experiences are really needed and, for skills and experiences, that there is really a need for a running start.
  
  
• If you find yourself rejecting candidates because of reasons NOT listed on the job listing, LIST them.

Value: a subjective blend of price, quality, features, culture, and perception

 

     Price is usually easily quantified -- even if it is determined at the end of negotiations and bartering. Value is always a subjective matter. Value is how much something is "worth" as opposed to how much it costs. Beyond price, determination of value will depend on many other subjective matters. I will go into some of these factors individually and then will try to put them all together into a basket.

     Price is determined by local currency exchange. This could be the local money. It could be how many chickens or fish. It could be some portion of electronic valued currency. For many areas of the world, this price is a fixed amount for smaller priced items. Buying larger quantities of the same manufactured item may cost less per item. In other countries, the price can fluctuate between the replacement cost and several multiples of the replacement cost. Some items are "one of a kind" and there are no comparable items upon which to set a price. These require negotiation. Even in countries where most items are of non-varying prices, large cost items such as houses and cars are still negotiated.

     With limited supply, the factors of supply and demand come into play. If there are 100 of an item and 500 people want the item then either the seller fixes the price and the first 100 people who pay get them -- or the seller prices the item high and lowers the price slowly until the people who are willing, and able, to buy them at that price have depleted the inventory. No more items. People that pay more get the added recognition of getting the item earlier. People who don't consider the recognition to be worth more money will try to time it such that they pay the price in demand just upon the edge of depleting the inventory.

     Many may argue that quality can be quantified. But that would be true only if the very same aspects of the item were able to be compared with other items grouped with it and if those aspects had equal weight for all people. For example, take the issue of automobiles. A test organization can take the car through safety tests, acceleration and braking tests, crash tests, mileage tests, and whatever other tests may be imagined. But the cars tested, and the cars purchased, will be part of a much larger group. And, within a group, quality will vary. A car that is not well built, but considered to be part of a brand that is given great ratings, is called a "lemon". A car that is wonderfully built, but considered to be part of a brand that is given poor ratings, might be considered to be a "jewel".

     In addition, the aspects of an item to be tested cannot be infinite. I am personally finding road noise to be of a greater importance as my hearing ages. Sometimes that aspect is hard to find numbers for. But, even if I could find them for all car models that I wanted to consider, it is not a number that exists in isolation. Tires make a difference. Wheel size makes a difference. Suspension makes a difference, Exterior features (like railings on top for carry-racks) make a difference. Quality is subjective.

     Value also depends on features -- and what is wanted, what is required, what is NOT wanted. For one person, having a feature adds to the value but, for another person, it may reduce the value -- it might even outweigh all other aspects of the evaluation. Real estate agents are always urging this upon people selling real estate. Aim for the mode -- the features that most people want, the colors that the fewest people object to, the items that are easily observable. This may make the real estate much LESS appreciated by yourself -- but give the best chance of being considered by the most potential buyers and obtain the highest price.

     From that, it can be determined that what you do to the house will depend on your goal. If you plan to live in the house the rest of your life then you do what you, yourself, most appreciate and desire. If you plan to use the house only as a temporary location in which to store possessions, keep the rain out and the heat in -- then you treat the house as something you are preparing for sale.

     The local culture will provide a lens within which features will be evaluated. In the US, quantity is very often considered more important than quality when evaluating value. "Bigger is better". "Supersize me". Alas, in the area of food, the supersize does not apply only to the food. To "waste" or "waist", that is the question.

     In other areas of the world, quality takes precedence. A small quantity of something prepared especially well or from beloved ingredients will be of greater value than something of indifferent preparation and generic ingredients.

     If you live on a small island and half of the populace lives on the shores of the island, then that ocean view will not add much value.  If you are in a land-locked arid country, then being beside a river, pond, or lake (even if human-made) will be a feature that raises the value. If you have bad memories associated with the water, then being near it or able to see and hear it, will be a feature of reduction in value.

     Finally, there is perception. This is closely related to branding. One of my Aunts and her husband always purchased electronics that had a specific brand name. They wouldn't consider any other brand if they were considering a purchase. (This is every manufacturer's dream.) Even after the brand was sold to another company, they continued their loyalty. In my rural home town, two major US truck brands had (and have) their loyal buyers -- it was (and is) almost like a sports club fan situation. The same situation existed (exists) for farm machinery.

     Formal branding is not needed for value based upon perception. Marketing and sales always have a desire to increase perceived need for, and perceived quality of,  their product line. A real estate agent will aim clients towards the maximum price range areas to optimize their commission (except under "redline" conditions).

     "Perception is king." All of the above factors (and more) come into play when a person is evaluating the value to themselves -- but perception will overwhelm any attempt to quantify, or objectify, any aspect that is being evaluated.

     Value remains subjective.

Haste makes waste: the hazards of speed before preparation

 

     I do a lot of cooking around the house. Although I enjoy the various cooking shows that are currently popular, I cannot often make use of the recipes. They either take too much time or they involve ingredients that fall afoul of the pickiness of one or another of the members of the household. I primarily watch in admiration and awe of the fluidity of the actions of the professional chefs.

     I have often wondered why, in comparison to the published recipes and cooking shows, my preparation time takes about twice as long as that stated on the recipe or what it takes for them to do it on a cooking show (cooking time is usually fairly similar <smile>).

     I have decided that my "slowness" is a combination of lack of practice with a particular recipe and my basic tool skills. Watching a "MasterClass" of cooking techniques, I can watch a chef finely dice a shallot in the time that it would take me to locate it in the pantry or refrigerator. There is a third factor which I am slowly improving upon -- organization and method. When a chef on a cooking show prepares food, they have everything pre-measured, and set out, such that cooking is a matter of assembly and preparation.

     With 45 years of experience as a general, household, cook -- I am faster, and more able, than many. But, in order to get as experienced as the chefs, I would need to cook the same dish 100 times within a week. Repetition, within short time frames, is what grinds in the motor memory needed to do something with lack of conscious thought. I remember watching a show about Julia Child and she needed to practice peeling potatoes. So, she got a huge mound (hundreds) of potatoes and just started peeling. (I would not have liked to pay for her grocery bill that month.)

     This type of experience is also necessary for skills with tools -- in particular, knives. In this area my willingness to attempt increasing speed is greatly tempered by my fear. I know about holding fingers in a certain way, keeping the knife sharp, making sure the food and cutting board are properly secured, and all that -- but I am still afraid of allowing muscle memory to take over. As is true of most cooks (and even chefs), I have a few scars from past burns and cuts (no missing digits, thank goodness). In this respect, I am willing to be slow. I know how to speed up and I know it is somewhat irrational but I am willing to be slow in this area.

     A final area of practice is with some techniques. I would LOVE to be able to take a skillet of hash browns and flip, and fold, them with a toss of the skillet and movement of the wrist. And it's not that awfully dangerous. But, I will wager quite fully, those people on the cooking shows who casually flip their food have also cleaned up a lot of messes in the process. Since I am the one to clean up my messes, I prefer not to make them -- so that is still on my cooking "bucket list".

     Some of you who are reading this from a more formal business viewpoint may (even are likely to) be wondering "what has this got to do with business"? Quite a lot. We are talking about the basic aspects of preparation, practice, experience, tools, procedure, and logistics.

     There is often an excellent correspondence between household needs and business needs. Probably that isn't an accident as the processes (and "product management") needed in household tasks existed prior to taking them into the business environment.

     So, in respect to business, "let's get cooking".

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The world of work: complex interdependencies

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

Fake memes: Why are they created?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retention: Job Hopping and Employee Loyalty

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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