The Shark Must Move: Investment for the Future

     A shark breathes by having the water flow past its gills so that it can extract oxygen. If it stops moving, fresh oxygenated water does not continue to flow past its gills and it dies. Unless outside factors are supporting them, companies, groups, and individuals must keep moving or they will not prosper. Perhaps they will linger but they will not thrive. 

     Once a company goes public, there are strong expectations. They come from analysts, from stockholders, from a board of directors. Very few of them have the benefit of a long-range view. Tell them that you'll have something amazing in three or four years and they may say "that's nice, what do you have for me now?" Thus, the pressure is steady to accomplish within the short term -- a quarterly viewpoint.

     Within a family, the range of returns stretches out a bit. As long as there is a known goal to be approached and some type of progress, towards that goal, which can be recognized then all is smooth on the front.

    We have three aspects of preparing for the future. First is to understand the goal we wish to approach. Note that a goal must include the definition of a journey but it does not always include a requirement to reach the destination. Perhaps it is an iterative goal and process. Second, we need to commit to doing what is needed to move towards that goal. Third, we need planned activity and movement to go towards that goal. Definition, commitment, movement.

     There is a dream. It may not be reached but it is a direction. My company died because we had no direction of growth beyond providing the best current product and support that we could. That is NOT a bad "mission statement" but it doesn't keep the shark moving. As our market shrank so did the company.

     Doing what you currently do is great for the day to day -- until it isn't. Sometimes a company, or individual, will succeed in being able to just continue to provide small improvements and, if the market remains strong and competition weak, that can keep the shark moving enough to stay alive. But, if the market changes or the competition becomes stronger and better funded, it is not enough and you can only look forward to dwindling results.

     Assume you have decided upon that goal. First living person on Mars perhaps? Are you willing to commit? Will you allocate enough resources to realistically move towards the goal? Resources may include time, money, labor, thought, negotiations, etc. A company may succeed in deciding upon a goal but be so restricted in outlook towards the next quarter's profit and production that there is no true commitment toward any long-term goal. 

     Sometimes people find themselves devoting all their time and energy to staying alive. Just like providing a great product and support, staying alive is devotion to the present and it is NOT a bad thing. But it won't move you towards your goal. "Success stories" are often about people who commit more than they thought they had in order to move towards a goal. Night classes? Writing that great novel in the hour before sunrise each day? Finding a job that allows study during the time one is watching over an incoming queue?

     Commitment is recognition that the future cannot be ignored.

     Having decided upon the direction (recognizing that you might not achieve the final goal) and committing to do what is needed to move towards that goal, you now have to move. Further education? Active networking? Setting aside income for savings? Reducing quarterly dividends to allow for more research and development? Possibly (but not as a first step) your commitment and belief is strong enough that you decide to hasten the accumulation of money by taking out a loan. Many businesses have begun with an extra mortgage on a house (or of the founder's parents' house).

     And if you achieve that goal? Start the process over again. Keep the shark moving.

Buy One Get One: bulk orders and changes in size

 

     I don't know how in the world the US government gets their inflation numbers, but our grocery bills have gone up about 35% since pre-pandemic period. No changes in menu, number of people eating, or any such thing. This is all anecdotal -- it is a reflection of MY experience and it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else (but it probably does).

     It does seem that the increases have been erratic and different between items. Russet potatoes went from $0.99/pound to $1.29/pound and have recently come back down (hurrah) to $1.19/pound. The cost of most oils went up quite a bit. I don't restock cooking oils that often so my memory is more likely to be fuzzy but I believe they went up more than 50% and possibly as much as 75%. One might say -- who cares about oil -- but I think that the increase in the cost of cooking oils has influenced processed food prices quite a lot as processing foods often requires cooking oil.

     On to processed foods, including the ultraprocessed  ("junk") foods. We try to keep those limited but they certainly are still a part of our diet. In one way, the increased prices of those is "good" as it gives incentive to not eat them or, at least, reduce the amount they are in our diets. One famous brand of stackable potato chips went from $1.69 pre-pandemic to $2.65 post-pandemic (a 57% increase). A carton of 12 cans of soda went from $5.25 to $9.25 (a 75% increase). One of my sons, who goes grocery shopping with me, is currently attempting to wean himself off of canned sodas -- in part due to the prices.

     I do not have the background knowledge on the reasons for the various price increases. I can read media articles but I haven't read anything that goes back to source material. So, I can only go according to the reports of "supply chain" failures and lack of people for various manual needs in food production. Certainly, a small amount of it has been due to reducing the underpayment of various people doing those manual needs in order to entice them to come back to work (before it was safe to do such, in some cases). But the source of the majority of the increases is a mystery to me. But, let's say they were real and caused the "laws" of supply and demand to move those prices up.

     Besides that ten cents per pound decrease in the price of potatoes, I cannot think of many items that have gone back down. Can you? Whatever causes there were to increase prices are likely gone, correct? There is at least one case in Europe right now that is confronting a food producer to give justifications for their continued price increase. At least the prices seem to have stopped their rampant growth though I noticed, yesterday, an additional ten cents per pound for ground beef (about a 2% increase -- insignificant though still raising questions).

     One method that grocery stores and food producers use to avoid reductions in prices is SALES. Rotate the sale prices among the various items. Some sale prices are as much as 60% off. A local grocery store often has a 'buy two, get two "free"' sale on cartons of soda. Lately, it has been 'buy two, get three "free"'. Snack chips have 40% sales and 'buy one, get one "free"'. These heavy discounts do two major things. They give the illusion that prices have gone back down (without officially causing "deflation") and they keep the demand moving which would normally decrease with the increases of prices.

     Another thing that food producers can do to influence perception is to change amounts per item or general size. Prices I have a reasonable chance of remembering and comparing (recognizing that memory is one of the most precarious things). But, do you remember how many ounces of potato chips were in that bag three years ago? I sure don't. I am pretty sure the sizes of the sack containers have decreased but that does not necessarily mean the amount inside of the sacks has reduced.

     In our economic, and political, situation in the US there isn't much that can be done about increased prices. We live with them and hope that prices aren't raised again for several years -- when general inflation has moved up enough to justify current prices. In the meantime, bulk purchases and sales discounts and bundling are our best bets to stretch the food budget.

Gifted: The double-edged sword

 

     Most school districts in the United States have something called a "gifted" program. My wife (a lifelong teacher) was the head of the gifted program for one school district in California once upon a time. I suspect that other countries have programs that are similar but I am ignorant of them. (I would be happy to hear about them.)

     In the case of the school districts, "gifted" meant the ability to excel on various academic tests and within school performance. The word "gifted" can certainly be used for other attributes -- and should be (perhaps more often than it is). Gifted as an athlete. Gifted as a musician whose instrument is played as if it was a part of their body. Gifted as a generous, giving, person. Gifted in external beauty. Name any attribute that is celebrated by a society, or some subset of society, and there will be people who will be considered as "gifted" within that group.

     The advantage in being identified as gifted (in whatever area you are being classified) is to be able to get, or qualify for getting, additional incentives and training within your focal strength. In the case of academic giftedness, it means classes that challenge a person more and prepare the people for more advanced courses quicker. In the case of athletic giftedness, it may mean additional coaching, trophies, scholarships, and being higher on recruiters examination roles.

      Most high schools (in the US) have yearbooks. There is often a section called "Most likely to" which apply to the various "gifted" categories as well as ones considered humorous (or insulting). When the yearbook is passed around to classmates for signatures and notes, any additional mention often focuses on the area of giftedness -- acknowledging what continues to be acknowledged.

     There is nothing wrong about appreciating, and encouraging, strong "gifted" foci. But, it can be a burden to be ONLY acknowledged for that "gifted" quality. Everyone has gifts. Everyone has areas in which they most need to improve. Sometimes a person will be gifted in more than one area but there is a hierarchy of recognition of gifts. A person considered beautiful according to societal norms may ALSO be very intelligent, very caring, and very empathetic. They may struggle throughout their life to have acknowledgement of those non-praised aspects. "Blonde jokes" are not only hurtful but may also be self-determining.

     This focus on the area of "gifted" qualities can become a burden if it goes out of balance. In fact, it is possible to push a person to the "burnout" stage if perfection becomes the goal and assumption. A talented child may lose all interest in sports after having been pushed to never fail. In academics, there can never be a mistake -- one missed question is a catastrophe (and has been known to even lead to suicide). And, if that focus doesn't have any balance, what happens when a talented young athlete -- who has focused on their sport all of their life -- has a severe compound fracture which cannot be set correctly?

     If a particular "gifted" quality is acknowledged and praised, then the person with that characteristic may find it difficult to be treated as a whole person. "Brainy" children may be ostracized from the other children and have a difficulty in being able to learn to socialize due to lack of opportunity. While a person judged beautiful by societal norms may also have other internal attributes that are more useful to a full, active, life -- the societal pressures to accentuate that "gift" may push them away from becoming better integrated into society. Likewise, the high school football star may be fantastic in business classes and practical application and also have a great ability to do well academically -- but the pressure to perform within their gift can make it harder for them to achieve, or be acknowledged for, balance in their lives.

     These "shadow aspects" of the "gifted" have a strong need to be acknowledged and nurtured in order to have a good, balanced life -- especially for those whose "gift" may decrease over the years (for example, physical prowess or external beauty).

Imposter Syndrome: Preemptive sabotage

 

     I did a blog on Imposter Syndrome last year. But that blog was more about what it is and how you can work with it and overcome it. There are other aspects of that feeling. One. in particular, is what I would call "preemptive sabotage". If you aren't comfortable feeling like you are suited for a role then why not demonstrate that lack of ability? You aren't an imposter if you really aren't able to do it and shouldn't do it, right?

     This aspect is closely related to "Fear of Success". The rationales are slightly different but the methods of achievement are quite parallel.

     Not up to it physically? Oversleep those important meetings. When I was growing up, I didn't enjoy being home very much and school was my escape (I know that, for most people, it works the other way). Somehow, I was never able to convince the schools or the teachers to open up on holidays and weekends but I did succeed in having my major childhood illnesses during school holidays quite a bit more than statistically likely. I didn't want to be home, didn't want to be physically available to do things (other than reading and watching cartoons), and so I was sick. Mumps? Measles? Chicken Pox? Stomach Flus? Usually, they occurred during winter/Christmas break so that I had time to get sick and get better before school resumed though I certainly succeeded in phasing out of spring breaks also. Single day holidays were usually safe as there was a danger that I wouldn't be well enough to return to school if I got sick.

     Of course, there are also those self-inflicted aspects which help one not to show up. One can get into all kinds of reasons behind them but stage fright is certainly one way to do it. You've prepared for the possibilities, memorized your lines, perhaps memorized all of the lines such that you could play any role and, ready to step onto the stage, you can't make that first step. You've walked up and down that stairway hundreds of times but, on the way to a presentation, you miss a step, pull a tendon, and limp into that meeting 20 minutes late.

     Just completed a complex assignment? Worked extra hard on it? Had to skip meals and your twentieth anniversary? Ah, just tell people around you -- especially any manager or supervisor -- "it was nothing". And they'll believe you. That doesn't mean you need to go overboard the other direction and puff yourself up until you reach true blowhard state. But, if you don't claim credit for your work there will likely be someone else who will step up and claim it for themself.

     Don't allow enough time for potential problems with traffic and you WILL sometimes miss those important meetings. In some cultures, it is worse to be early than to be late -- but you can always sit in the car, take an extra trip to the restroom, get a drink of water, or otherwise use any time that turns out to be unneeded.

     In many activities, meditative practice can be useful. Sit, imagine you are walking up to the plate and hitting the ball. Be in that meeting room showing those slides and not finding the ones you want. Practice recovering from mistakes and problems as much as you prepare for presenting it correctly. There may be a point at which you are tired of rehearsing but it is unlikely you shall ever reach a point where you have over-rehearsed.

     There are many ways to prepare. Failing to do such is also preparation -- preparation to not succeed. Follow through on what you have as your goal and dream.

Mission Impossible: concurrent multitasking for individuals

 

    There is always a temptation to try to work on more than one thing at a time. Back in the long ago, it might take a half hour or more for a compilation of a program to complete. During that time, one did something else -- possibly even something useful (isn't playing games useful?). But that was not truly multitasking. I was either working on the program, submitting it, playing games, or testing the program after it completed compilation. Compiling was a background task with which there was no active effort.

     It is certainly possible to work on more than one thing at a time if you have a group of people. One plus one does not quite equal two -- but it certainly allows more to be done. Reduction of need to interact helps the efficiency (but not necessarily the quality). As is seen in "The Mythical Man Month", projects can easily reach a size and complexity such that adding additional people is counter-productive. Teams can still add productivity if each task is delineated sufficiently. Consider a building crew for a house. Two people working together on framing, one person doing insulation, one person doing materials preparation. When tasks can be cleanly split, productivity from multitasking reaches its best -- but each person (or "processor") is working as an individual unit.

     As implied, a computer can make use of multiple processors -- or cores -- to allow simultaneous task performance. Four core, six core, eight core (usually in multiples of two -- does anyone know why?). Once again, the scheduling of software being performed must be coordinated between the cores.

     This blog, however, is primarily aimed at multitasking for individuals (or, more properly, the inability for a person to multitask). It may be easier to explain this by going outside of ourselves and use the single processor system as an example. A processor is moving along, performing the actions required by a particular program. Then, for whatever reason (operating systems, timers, and scheduling algorithms are not current topics), another program needs to be performed. The processor (actually part of yet another program called the operating system -- or done explicitly by each program) needs to "write down" current "context". This context is an image of the current situation at the time of moving to the other program. What is the next line of code to be executed, what are all current (temporary and permanent) results from the program -- all these need to be written down so that, when processing resumes on the current program, it can continue as if nothing had ever interrupted.

     This process -- context switching -- has a certain fixed amount of time needed. So, if you are doing two programs in "multitasking" (true but not concurrent) then there will be time in program one, time to store context, time in program two, store context, restore program one context, time in program one, ... The more often that programs need to swap with each other, the greater the percentage overhead -- this infers that the more programs being swapped between, the smaller active time available per task and the greater percentage overhead.  For example, if dividing up 150 secs of activity between two tasks:

2 tasks present; 75 secs task 1, 25 secs save and swap, 75 secs task2, 25 secs save/swap: 25% overhead

10 tasks present; 15 secs task 1, 25 secs save/swap, 15 secs task2, 25 secs save/swap, 15 secs task3,
25 secs save/swap, 25 secs save/swap, 15 secs task4, 25 secs save/swap, ... : 25/40 = 62.5% overhead

These numbers are greatly simplified (probably would be using nanoseconds, for example) but the principle holds -- the more tasks, the greater the overhead. Note that storage and retrieval of context requires space in addition to time. Too many tasks, too little resources and you have a system unable to do useful work.

     Although there appears to be some similarities between computers and the way humans process information (after all, we did design them) -- we are not the same. We probably do processes much differently than a computer. But the effects can be the same.

     Note that humans are able to walk and chew gum. We can listen to music while writing a letter. This is because different activities use different parts of the brain. In this manner, we have the equivalent of multiple processors -- however, these are not separate general processors -- they are very task-specific processors.

     We can only do one similar category of thing at a time. We can have laundry washing in the background, or a loaf of bread in the oven but those are not tasks in which we are currently active (once we reach the point of taking the laundry out, we are now active again). When we change tasks, we need to keep track of "just what we were doing" at the point of time we changed tasks in order to resume a task. The more tasks we switch between, the less time we have to do each task because of overhead.

     How do we save the context when changing tasks? The process is a statistical curve (maybe not quite a standard bell curve but still ...). When we are young and we get distracted, we may never get back to the original task (which might be the point of the distraction). As we get older, we learn to store context in medium-term memory (maybe jot a short note in addition) and get back to the original. We get "better" at doing more and more tasks -- but we are still decreasing efficiency with each additional task. At some point, we lose context. We cannot remember well enough to resume a task or a set of tasks. We can start recording the context more fully on paper but then we have to file and retrieve that piece of paper.

     From my 66-year-old point-of-view, that is a problem that gets worse with age. Short and medium-term memory gets more clogged with past events/contexts/swaps and we are less efficient at storing and retrieving those contexts. "Why did I go into the kitchen? Where did I put my keys when my son called asking what was for dinner?" At first it is irritating and then, with active understanding, it becomes humorous. I have learned that not everything MUST be remembered -- and that has reduced stress. But it will probably get worse.

     But I am in good company as the ability to task swap is a matter of degree but the challenges exist for all.

Microbiomes: The middle road to understanding

     "Western" medicine is excellent on the mechanics of the body -- replacing a hip, changing out a lens for the eye, insert a replacement cochlea, add an artificial replacement limb, and so forth. When it comes to working with the biochemistry of the body, it is more hit-and-miss and many discoveries have been serendipitous findings rather than the tail end of a focused search. Some aspects of interactions have been investigated and understood but, still, more from the point of view of mechanics -- receptacle points, chemical reactions, and enzymal subsystems.

     "Eastern" medicine has a longer history of treating the body, mind, and functioning as a holistic system -- recognizing that the mind (whatever that is), soul (whatever that is), and body all interact to make us live, react, and process life the way that we do. There is a tradition of building up longtime knowledge of the effects of various herbs, foods, and other substances with the way the body works. The manner in which such substances interact with the body are subsumed into spiritual, and traditional, teachings which often use words without specific "western" definitions.

     All approaches, and knowledge, can be of benefit.  Divisions between areas of knowledge are only useful for classification. "Western" medicine is becoming more interesting in energy aspects, such as chi. "Eastern" medicine is more allowing of the uses for engineering aspects of treating bodily ailments. Perhaps at some point, no divisions or classification will shine out.

     One area of development which is more in the "middle" of such development is research into the microbiomes of the body. As a recent "Gates Notes" blog indicated, a large percentage of our bodies are actually cells not directly part of the body. Most of such are beneficial and many are symbiotic. His blog emphasizes uses of pro- and prebiotics to help the microbiome in their tasks and provide a better symbiosis with the body. There are also books on microbiomes, a major tome of which is "I Contain Multitudes" by Ed Yong.

     Gates' blog emphasizes the role of the microbiome as applied to treatment of malnutrition. My own older blog on microbiomes (perhaps of interest to read, from May 25, 2015) covers some of the various important microbiomes -- including that on the skin which can provide a first point of defense for intruders into the body as well as the effect of the microbiomes may play with systemic diseases such as diabetes and asthma.

     I point out that a large problem with the transformation of our microbiomes is that manipulation can be very difficult to achieve. The upper digestive tract -- which should be the most direct route to the environment of the lower digestive tract, acting as a home for a major microbiome -- destroys most of any pre- or probiotics that try to enter via the route of ingestion. Substitution from the other direction (not necessarily for the squeamish) works much better but has the problem of being more of a "mallet" approach where it is not a manipulation but, rather, an attempt to conquer the old microbiome by a newer, hopefully healthier, microbiome.

     One side-effect of being aware of the existence of the microbiomes on, and inside, our bodies is that it has become much more obvious that it is wrong to say "kill all the bacteria" or "stop all the viruses". In fact, although antibiotics have been literal lifesavers to prevent major harm from bad bacteria, antibiotics may also contribute to more general illnesses (diabetes, arthritis, cancer, etc.) as a result of killing off helpful good bacteria.

     Note that there will never be ONE general population of microbiomes because each environment supports different situations. Someone who has rice as their principal food will support different creatures in their microbiome than someone who has wheat bread as their dominant food (and even different for those who have cola soft drinks as THEIR dominant calorie intake). A person living in near constant heat will have a different skin microbiome than someone who lives (or, with climate change, lived) in sub-freezing temperatures year-round.

     One of our challenges in this investigation is inventories. Just what viruses and bacteria are present in, and on, our bodies? What are their side-effects from living? What helps the good ones (which are typically dominant)? What hinders the specific bad ones (the methods we have do not discriminate well between beneficial inhabitants and those that are bad). We are aware that traditional uses of antibiotics are losing their usefulness as bacteria adapt to resist the medicines. Knowledge of our microbiomes will require us to understand well enough to tailor medicines against specific creatures rather than "all" creatures.

     After inventories -- knowing what, and what they do -- we need methods of manipulation. Pre-, pro-, and regular biotics might be encapsulated such that they only become vulnerable after the digestive process has completed its task of breaking down food into components. "Good" cultures could be maintained outside of the body and used to supplement existing microbiomes.

     Whatever emphasis is taken, our bodies ARE indeed houses for many. Some religious scriptures may refer to our bodies as temples and occupational spaces for the gods. We need good neighbors within our bodies as well as in the outside world between people. Finding methods of understanding these interior worlds of interacting cells may be as difficult as understanding of the outer world but both can be of great benefit and worth the effort;

First Do No Harm: ethics of morality, amorality, and immorality

 

     "First Do No Harm" (FDNH) is an adage that applies to the medical profession as well as variants of which as used by a high-tech company as their stated guideline. While this seems quite straight-forward, it rarely is. However, it is an ethics question that should be "top of mind" with every analysis of action, decision, or behavior.

     In the case of medicine, most treatments have possible, even likely, side-effects. It is always a judgement call as to whether the medicine, or treatment, is likely to do more good than harm. Both the effects of the treatment and the potential side-effects are on various sliding scales. Effects range from Very unlikely to help to almost guaranteed to help. Potential side-effects move along the sliding scale from unnoticeable to greatly affecting the quality of life. The side-effects have an additional sliding scale which ranges from extremely unlikely to occur to almost guaranteed to happen.

     Even if these sliding scales can be adequately defined, it is impossible to put any situation on a specific point on all of the scales. Effects, side-effects, and likelihoods are going to vary from person to person. Additionally, the importance of those effects, side-effects and likelihoods are going to vary also. Because this is true, FDNH evaluation often should be relegated back to the patient, rather than remaining solely with the doctor. For cases where (in the weighted opinion of the doctor) the positive effects are likely to be small and the potential negative side-effects have a large chance to be significant and quite harmful it makes no sense for the patient to not have the last word.

     Moral behavior for an individual or business must include the aspects of doing the best that one can -- with the least negative and the most positive. Actions should also be equivalent for all people, groups, and circumstances. For instance, if a salary freeze is in effect for a company then it should apply to all -- from the CEO or President to maintenance staff. I remember one year, in a large research company, when a salary freeze was put into effect -- but executive staff was given a 25% increase. Immoral and highly destructive to company morale and productivity.

     Evaluation of morality of actions and behavior always fall into a subjective arena. There will always be trade-offs and a variety of formulas of actions that affect different people in various ways. Sometimes, companies will allow the employees to choose between possibilities. One company presented the options of compensating for a lowered income stream by laying off a large number of people or taking a pay cut for all employees. When given explicit choices, I am proud to relay that the decision which is supportive of the most people is most often taken.

     What about immoral, or "bad",  behavior and actions? Usually immoral behaviors end up counter-productive and do not survive -- as long as such behavior is visible and subjected to external response and criticism. It does not make business sense to do "bad" things deliberately if the result is negative to the bottom line. In addition, doing "bad" things deliberately reduces corporate competitiveness. It is one of the major reasons why corporations are typically supportive of inclusive policies. Inclusive policies increase the customer base, increase the intellectual and physical pool of employees, and (not quite universally) adds to the corporate image. Non-inclusive, or discriminatory, policies do the opposite.

     One multinational megacorporation formalizes the trade-offs between positive effects and negative effects. When they set up their spread sheets for production and marketing, there are spots, in the rows and columns, for potential deaths and how much such deaths (or significant health effects) will cost in terms of legal costs, settlements, and PR hits that might affect the bottom line.  The company does not particularly WANT bad effects but they are very tolerant of living with such if profits are maintained -- they follow the definition of an amoral corporation. They are often at the target end of boycotts but the percentage market hit of those participating in the boycotts are also weighed into the spread sheet. Alas, not surprisingly, the spreadsheets often indicate that they can make more profit by allowing avoidable side-effects. And the boycotts have only moral value and do not significantly affect profits.

     Moral -- trying to do the most good and the least harm. Amoral -- trying to personally benefit the most while taking into account the repercussions of negative behavior; the negative behavior can be evaluated as excessive by outside forces. Immoral -- doing the most harm in spite of negative consequences.

     While these aspects of ethics can certainly be viewed in other manners, these are one set of usable criteria.

On a Pedestal: Setting them up to fail

 

     It is good to thank people and to appreciate what they do. It is also good to admire people based upon their past words and actions. But taking that admiration and using it to require a person to achieve, and maintain, perfection is very bad for everyone.

     Everyone has their own definition of perfection. The first definition of perfect in some dictionaries is "complete". Something that is perfect is complete. While I can certainly see that definition as possible, it is my opinion that most people define perfect as being without a flaw. Perhaps it is possible to have a flawless diamond, or a flawless speech but, once again, we are back to the individual definitions of "flaw". Maybe that diamond is flawless according to the evaluation lists for a gemologist but some person expects to be able to see a "Pink Panther" within the gem and, otherwise, it is not perfect.

     When people set a goal for themselves of perfection -- and do not give themselves credit for what they achieve short of that goal -- then it is an endless cycle of labors. Fear of mistakes and imperfection can cause additional hurdles to overcome even when doing what would normally be considered an easy job.

     I remember one time while driving in Boulder, Colorado, I was driving behind a car driving about 10 mph under the speed limit (which is actually illegal in most states). We reached the corner and the separated right turn lane had a "Yield" warning sign by it. But there was almost no traffic -- certainly nothing to yield for. As I examined the situation noticing the lack of traffic, I bumped into the car ahead of me which had stopped at the "Yield" sign. There were no injuries to either person or automobile as I was moving at about 3 or 4 mph. But it certainly shocked me as well as the driver ahead of me. They came out of the car frantic to see what damage had been done (luckily none had been). It turned out that he had borrowed the car from his girlfriend and he was driving "extra careful" to make sure there were no problems. That "extra careful" meant he was exceeding safety margins and creating a more dangerous situation rather than a safer one.

     People are humans. They make mistakes. They are meant to make mistakes from which they can learn. In the technical arena, learning within ML or AI is a process of recognizing mistakes and refining knowledge until mistakes become less and less.

     As in the movie "White Christmas", putting someone on a pedestal (whether they are a "white knight" or not) is what often can happen -- especially in the early stages of a relationship. And that can easily end the relationship even earlier than otherwise (perhaps, otherwise, it might not have even ended). Some day, perhaps, they will invent a Super Glue that allows humans to stay up on top of those pedestals.

     But don't hold your breath for it.

Ho, ho, ho: A matter of definitions

 

    Do you believe in Santa Claus? It seems that it is still a question that is posed to people of different ages. At what age did you stop believing in Santa Claus? "Yes, Virginia. There is a Santa Claus". Perhaps, it is this latter reply, or explanation, that was published on September 21, 1897 that is the closest at heart to what I believe. Yes, I do believe in Santa Claus and I have never stopped believing in Santa Claus. Even during moments in history when it is extraordinarily difficult to believe, I do believe.

     But much of the examination of, and the full disclosure for, this reply is based on the definition. Is Santa Claus a pudgy old white male with snow white beard and hair? (I fear I might qualify for this -- especially the pudgy part -- in December some children do look twice at me.) Certainly, there are more and more pudgy (or pillow-stuffed) men whose skin is closer to the color of chocolate or ebony who don the traditional apparel and strive to bring joy to children of all ages. I see no reason why the gender and age should matter much. In "Miracle on 34th Street", Alfred, the younger man who helps Santa and dons his own suit, is certainly not of the old man variety. There is still an "icy ceiling" that shifts women over to the role of Mrs. Claus -- but also some that break through that barrier and represent Santa at their jolliest.

     Now, alas, that doesn't mean that everyone accepts every variant of Santa Claus as the one that meets the needs of their heart. And that's fine as long as all of the other incarnations of Santa are free to bring joy to the hearts of others.

     As for me, I love them all -- I love their purpose of bringing joy to all. I enthusiastically accept that the spirit of Santa Claus has a place while being very aware of the religious foundations of the holiday. In spite of the commercials that bombard us and the banners that assault us in vast numbers, I believe in the simple joy and generosity of Santa. A homemade card and an eraser and paper clip doll can bring the brightest smile if it is done with caring and to someone still open to that emotion. Sometimes, it only needs a smile and a cup of soup.

     So, to all and everyone ("God bless them everyone" sayeth Tiny Tim) -- Ho, ho, ho and may the day be one of many joyous memories to sustain one through more difficult times.

Transparency vs opacity: layers of visibility

 

     A transparent situation allows full awareness of all that is going on and all interactions. An opaque situation means that only what is seen and heard, in response to some type of action, is all that is known. In the world of software testing, these are referred to as white box and black box situations which may be used for evaluation and testing. However, such a difference also exists within interpersonal relationships.

     In many instances, we know only what a person has done without knowing anything of the reasons and methods of doing the action. We may not even know what event, or events, occurred to cause the action. If all we know is from the "outside" then it is an opaque situation. It is hard to envision a person-to-person interaction where full transparency is possible. Full open communication and active listening can help but that only reaches conscious thoughts and reasonings.

     Groups of people may allow processes that are closer to transparent. What is happening within each person is still unknown but it is possible to keep track of interactions between the people and associate that with actions taken by the group. To put together a "rule book", transparency is not needed. What is needed are the events and the reactions -- though there may be so many variants of combinations of events that a complete rule book is impossible. These sets of "rule books" may be considered to be sets of laws -- both natural laws as well as human-created laws. However, in order to potentially change reactions to given inputs, transparency is needed.

     Let's go back to the world of software testing as it is much easier to examine internal behaviors and test reactions to given input than it is to do such with people. If you are doing transparent/white box testing, then you have access to all of the software code for the project. You certainly can connect to the places where the software is SUPPOSED to connect to other pieces of software but you can also examine just how it reaches this point. With experience, you can notice certain vulnerabilities -- places where the software can be persuaded to do things that it wasn't supposed to do. This is a blessing/curse for "open source software" because people can help your software become safer and more robust -- but others, who do not have the general public's best welfare in mind, can locate and take advantage of weaknesses.

     Within this transparent mode of testing, each comparison and each test can, and should, be tested for all legal values as well as a representation of illegal values. Proper error responses should happen with all illegal values and correct output should happen for all legal values. Once the individual tests have been checked, it can be checked at the function level and then at the system component level. Finally, we are at the stage of testing the full system. At this point, transparent testing may be similar, or identical to, opaque/black box testing.

     Like an onion, layers can be removed and something hidden can be made visible. Once visible, it can be examined and tested. This is true of software, of societies, of individuals, and of other objects which are the focus of examination by scientists and other interested people.

Choices: They always exist

 

     "I don't like either choice." "Why bother? Neither choice is any good." "I'm going to wait until there is a choice I like." One of the most glaring indications of the failure of students to come out of their formal, or informal, education with the ability to discern logic is that of not understanding the ability to reverse the direction of comparison. By this, I mean that if one object is worse than the other then -- automatically -- that means the other choice is better than this one. Having a "good" choice is not required for a person to make a better choice. "All" it requires (more easily written about than done) is to be able to compare choices.

     "Ah. But if I don't like either choice then I am indicating my opinion by not making a choice." Nope, you're just improving the odds of whatever you consider to be the worst of the choices. NOT making a choice for the better choice is equivalent to improving the chance of the worse choice being chosen. Or, in mathematical terms, no "+1" to the better choice becomes (by not making a choice) "+0" and the comparison is closer.

     It is possible that both choices truly are awful -- perhaps such that you aren't easily able to make a decision as to what is worse. At this point of choosing, there may be no possibility to create, or find, other choices that you consider an improvement. You are forced to fall back to choosing the better of the two. It is also an indication that you need to improve the selection of choices for the future.

     This can happen within a democracy where there are two (or more) stages of the electoral process. By the time of the election, a choice must be made between candidates. But, before that, there is a process where the candidate is chosen between various possible candidates. If you don't like either choice in the current election, then NEXT time get involved earlier in the process (and, for the current time, vote for the less bad). And getting involved doesn't stop at attending rallies -- you have to participate and then actually vote. But, that's for the next election. For this one, vote for the better.

     Lack of making a choice does not change inertia. A rudderless boat will move but only according to the whims of the wind and the waves. Making choices is a core aspect of leadership. Even a poor choice (if evaluated and changed when it is known it is the wrong one) is better than none because it allows focus of energy and future choices. There are a few special cases where only an informed choice is useful. Any other, non-informed, choice is just a guess -- and guesses are not necessarily an improvement.

     My wife and I like to watch Jeopardy! on a daily basis. Every so often, there will be a situation where the "question" is unknown to the contestants. One person guesses and fails. Then another person guesses and fails also. At this point, I am imploring the person on the television (yes, I know this is irrational as they cannot hear me) to "don't guess, don't guess". At this point, the person who has NOT guessed is "up" in relation to the other contestants (contestant A down x amount, B down x amount, the person not having guessed is UP x amount in comparison to A and B) -- they are in the same position as if they were the person to have guessed the question correctly. Of course, it they know the answer, answering is great. But if they also guess and fail they have just lost their competitive advantage. Yet, many of these third contestants are "caught up" in the moment and guess also.

     "Hobson's Choice" is a situation where there is really only "one choice". That is an illusion. There may be only one non-ludicrous choice but there is always the choice of doing something or not doing it. Get angry or don't get angry. Push the button or don't push the button. The consequences of one of those choices may not be acceptable (and the other barely acceptable) but we are really back into the same situation described in the first paragraph -- choosing the better of alternatives.

      We cannot create what is happening now but our choices often start processes on a path which will lead to future situations and choices. The choices of today make a difference for the future. We are always in the midst of a decision tree where each choice presents us with a different set of choices depending on that original choice.

     And not making a choice is still a choice.