Author: Maverisk

Quicky: For … eyes only ..?

Because all those high on Mr. Robot, looking alike but wannabe, deep down still would want to be like the center character in this (see the pic below), herewith:
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, can see me through the night in all privacy detail.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, I never need to more can hide.
You can see so much in ev’rything about me, so much in me that’s new all my browsing history ever.
I never felt until I looked at you it hurt me to death.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
You’ll see what no one else every commercial extortion can see, and now I’m breaking free my privacy’s lost totally.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
The love I know you need in me is now full graphics, 3D, the fantasy you‘ve freed in me joke about in glee.
Only for you the world to see, only for you the world to see.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, the nights servers are never cold.
You really know me, that’s all I need about me there is to know.
Maybe For sure I’m an open book because I know you’re mineing my info right now,
But you won’t need to read between the lines.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
You’ll see what no one else every commercial extortion can see, and now I’m breaking free my privacy’s lost totally.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
The passions privacy that collide in totally is no more for me, the wild abandoned side data of me.
Only for you the world to see, for your eyes only WikiLeaks and all.

Which is indeed Number Four in line with this, this and this…

Leaving you with…:
ForYourEyesOnly_Underwater2

Own rules

When ‘Compliance’ are the Spanish Inquisition, keep them to their own rules. Leviticus, in particular; 19:19, 19:27, 24:10-16 and others (note :4 for the commoners outside the C department), and Deuteronomy, e.g., 22:11. Exodus 21:7, too.

We’re looking at a lot of pink slips, and clawbacks, if we’d be too (sic) lenient.

Oh well:
20160805_160230[1]
[Compliance through the looking glass; GlassFever Dordrecht]

Risk Chagrins

It’s just a matter of Karma…

As long as ‘risk’ ‘managers’ deal with negativity (admit it; focusing on the negative is even written into quite a number of definitions involved ..!), they’ll become the sourpusses they want to see all around (remember, the “passing back risk management to the ‘first’ line” ..?), and according to which they’ll behave ever more, finding evidence everywhere they’re on the ‘right’ track.
Quod non, but conspiracy theorists as they are, they will not listen …

Oh, and this:
20150109_145912
[Your ‘risk’ ‘heat map’, accurate picture]

Plusquote: Materiality

Discussions about materiality are not material.

This, after realizing that all too often, the discussions about materiality were/are either by Eager Beavers (not having grown above box checking zealots), or by outsiders qua experience and expertise, e.g., lawyers (q.q.) and ‘governance’ bubbletypes.
Whereas, when ‘materiality’ (or its twin-at-a-right-angle, ‘significance’) its pass-or-fail boundary is discussed, not the precise measure (and hence, rigorous definition) counts, but the very fact that there is a discussion in the first place. That is material, that points at an issue. Wise minds (q.q. probably not directly involved ..!) understand this point and will not want to join the discussion, leaving the latter to the nonderstandables.

Think about it — when the discussion arises for whatever reason, that mere fact already is a signal, which can simply be reported as such, together with all its glorious detail. Must. For it is material significant oh whatever…

Leaving you for the weekend with:
20150109_150127[1]
[“It’s only a model” it aint ..! in Rotterdam — oh wait that’s a scaled re-build…]

Inverse Recency Bias

Word has … had it, that continuing doing what didn’t work, would be futile. (Remember?)
And, there was a thing called the Recency Bias (as, somewhere, in here).

Against the first, some point out its truth (quod non), that outcomes wouldn’t change. But when the environment (say, the actual world) in which the ‘experiment(s)’ were conducted, have changed — and it does, ever faster — the input will inevitably be processed differently hence will give different outcomes except the exceptions, rightly named.
Against the RB then, Big Data was all-powerful, in particular in pointing out that going back way beyond some limited, overly recent data set, would overcome it. If you go back long enough, you’ll find any data to fit any curve you’d like…

But in between both, we have the Inverse Recency Bias. When you go back far enough … of course you’ll find data, from a vastly different environment than the one that the recent data is from. So you’re biased to find results (time series extrapolated into the near or far future) that apply ever less, the more (further) you look back. Great.

Oh I’m just here to mess up your mind, so you can make it up. Plus:
20160805_140815[1]
[At GlassNext Dordrecht; Dordrecht Museum, Dordrecht]

Area man will reluctantly vote for Hillary

“I’ve had enough of hanging around at that White House.”

27 july 2016 by Jack Dornbusch

After the nomination of Donald Trump, many Americans have indicated their intention to vote for Hillary Clinton this November, while they actually do not particularly want her for president. The same for the 69 year old Bill, just the average next door American for whom the Democrats rooted the past 23 years. “I would rather enjoy my pension in quiet.”

It is that strange feeling of responsibility that moves Bill to vote for Hillary anyway, but it will not be full-heartedly: “I’ve had enough of hanging around the White House and at my age, I’m not particularly fond of all that travel abroad. But then, I owe her one.”

Eight years ago, Bill voted for Obama, when he contested the nomination against Clinton. “ I thought then that her political career would be over, but she’s unstoppable. Oh well, here we go again.”

Flickr-Steve-Jurvetson-670x375

[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]

ChainWASP

… With all the blockchain app(lication)s, in all senses, sizes and seriousnesses if that is a word, growing (expo of course) everywhere,
wouldn’t it be time to think about some form of OWASP-style programming quality upgrading initiative,

now that the ‘chain world is still young, hasn’t yet encountered its full-blown sobering-up trust crash through sloppy implementation. But, with Ethereum‘ and others’ efforts to spread the API / Word (no, no, not the linear-text app…) as fast and far and wide as possible, chances of such a sloppy implem leading to distrust in the whole concept, may rise significantly.

Which might, possibly, hypothetically, be mitigated by an early adoption of … central … Oh No! control mechanism of e.g., code reviews by trusted (huh?) third parties (swarms!) where the code might still remain proprietary and copyrighted.
Or at least, the very least, have some enforceable set of coding quality standards. Is that too much asked …??

I know; that’s a Yes. So I’ll leave you with the thought of a better near-future, and:
20150109_145839
[Horizontal until compile-time errors made adjustments necessary (pic); beautiful concept — other than Clean Code, actually executed to marvelous effect]

Man talks about Innovation

‘Innovation’

By Harold Jacobson

In Long Beach, a man talked about innovation. The man was of indeterminate age (thirty-five or something), wore a jacket and was slightly sweaty on the forehead. He stressed the importance of innovation: “Innovation.”

The man had made a ‘Roadmap Innovation and Innovation’ (RI&I). In the RI&I, there was something on the theme of ‘innovation’. The man said we are in the midst of an innovation revolution that may eventually lead to an innovation transition. According to the man, fear is not the right motivator but innovation is. Hence, we may come out stronger, if only we innovate.

The man was adamant we should have an ‘Integrative Innovation Cluster’ (IIC), as he already had in his RI&I. Because of the democratization of innovation, he said, changes are on order in the economy at large, like innovative initiatives.

According to the man, we may miss the boat if we don’t innovate. Therefore, for the boat we need an Investment Programme with Scenarios, Action Paradigms and Projects in the general area of Innovation (IPSAPPI). ‘Innovation’, as the man stressed.

[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]

Fintech: Babble-fork

Coining (pun not even intended as I wrote this — lame non-landing anyway) a new phrase: Babble-fork.
Which is what happens now in the financial industry with fintech:

Banks et al. think they have a role to play in the applications of blockchain technology in the financial industry of the future.
As bc is just a distributed ledger technology [ref. Tapscott the Elder & the Younger], right?
Obviously, dead wrong. Or, ‘the Internet’ is just phone lines between mainframes.

Otherhandly, the start-ups that have no role or place for the incumbents. The start-ups that expect the old ones to die [1:03 of the linked]… and then, it is already a mockery of a flattery to relate the financial industry-that-was with that commander that never made it to captain (Navy); an outright self-delusion of the grandest scale when such industrialists think they’ll still be able to catch up with the innovation tidal waves already rushing to their shores (unseen, over still deep seas until reaching their shallow tropical beach sides ..!).
Since bc is the very counterpoint of centralized (‘trusted third party’-, quod non par excellence!) trust, being the utter distribution of it hence contra anything however remotely approaching the delusion of importance that may still be with the traditionalists.

So, fintech forks ferociously for the financial future as a tenable alliteration runs only so long. But you get it. Time again to ask for the entry password — with the wrong answer leading to …?

Well then, I also have for you:
20160408_151402
[Dear Lord. In the Attick; Ams]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord