Author: Maverisk

Even de balans zoeken, in wijn proeven.
Eerder had ik al deze met een incompleet overzichtje van proef’methoden’/scores. Waarbij de basic chemistry, en het vastgestelde feit dat de tong hoewel per individu sterk variërend in ‘specialiteit’- en gevoeligheidsprofiel (4D) best wel even of veel meer gevoelig is dan ballpark lab-meetapparatuur, dus absoluut waarde heeft om aan te tonen dat iets met graniet ook daadwerkelijk die sensatie (sic) geeft en een hint van blauwe bessen dus betekent dat er een ietsje blauwe-bessenchemicalieën in zitten!

En met een uitstapje naar kaas. Zowat te vanzelfsprekend om nog te hoeven noemen.
Waarop bovendien een sausje van Beilagen in het algemeen in dit stuk. Oftewel; een diner moet [voor mij maar hé ik schrijf dit dus ik mag schrijven wat ik wil] 50-50 eten-wijn zijn, qua kwaliteit van de gang op bord en in het glas. Niet qua volume; kleine glaasjes want proeven boven drinken! en dat betekent dus ook dat de kwaliteit per volume in de wijn veel hoger moet liggen dan op het bord.

Nu is er dan eindelijk weer eens pertinente nieuwe info, wetenschappelijk gevalideerd dus: de op het oog belachelijke beschrijvingen van sommige kenners [als zodanig breed erkend…], worden door andere kenners juist geïnterpreteerd. Het is dus een kwestie van non-, semi- en vol-verbale signalling voor de in-crowd. Waarschijnlijk niet bewust, wellicht zelfs als jargongebruik-drempelverlagende inzet. Want als het volslagen verzonnen klinkt, kan iedereen er dus een eigen draai aan geven en niks is fout. Hetgeen allemaal heel juist is. Als er maar niet wordt geroepen ‘dat mag je niet proeven want dat staat niet in mijn WSET3-lijstje dat ik uit het hoofd heb geleerd ook al proef ik er niks van’.

Nou ja. Laten we het dus breed houden!
Tevens:

[Komt er inmiddels ook wijn uit de omgeving van Lake Geneva ..? Possibly.]

Lately, there seems to have been an distinguishable uptick in the number of misinterpretations of the GDPR. Erring on both sides:
1. “Uhhh we weren’t aware of anything near the sort of detail about our apparently total non-compliance in a vast array of things we should have arranged for the most basic decent business conduct qua management control and information security (whereof, by what we say of it, we testify to have less than 8-grader understanding); but now are found out to not be sufficiently competent to run our organisation by a most cursory of DPA inspection, journalist pinch or data leak.” [No can’t be boffered to use <ol> in this post]
2. “We were so panicked by conniving deceptive consultants [oh and legalistic legal staff] pushing their tools (that showed they had no clue either about actual GDPR requirements and hunted for eager beaver tool’let use as the minimal but sufficient thing to gain compliance; almost as wrong as one can get it) that we decided to over-do it in a laughable way.”

1. of course is a shame, and how much proof does one need of outright incompetence to throw the culprits out?
2. is the same, in particular since it undermines the very achievement of organisation objectives through not delivering services where required (by law or by market). Fines have been slung around to counter this.
Both are shameful also since the GDPR was ratified already in 2016, with enforcement only per 25 May 2018 – to give all time to get in line with it, capice? So, did you waste that time ..? Did you think compliance was or is or will be something that only legally trained staff will understand whereas it’s almost exclusively the opposite with legally trained staff legalistically only being able to regurgitate legal texts with zero understanding of what you’d need to do and still a question mark should follow here ah there it is: ?

The solution is so simple, even the above-mentioned can use it: RTFM. Read the GDPR for once! It’s perfectly doable! Anyone who just opened the PDF, could see that the very articles of it are so clear and concise as one would dream any law would be. Possibly, when tested, this would be one of those few laws where the readability rating would sit somewhere at 7^th grade.
So yes, even if I’m not sure ‘duncy’ is a word [don’t care to check since I’m not forced into ‘compliance’ or so with language rules that are longitudinal and latitudinal fluid anyway], it applies to you if you haven’t read the GDPR and still deal with it, in any fashion.
Go read. Be relieved. Appreciate:

[Only then may you rest, e.g., at the Porto Museu Romântico da Quinta da Macieirinha overlooking Villanova de Gaia from the gardens; yes Taylor’s is there for lunch (as is Ar de Rio ..!), and Vasconcelos and Vascos de Carvalho]
[It’s not ‘O’porto by the way, only those like airline pilots who say “New York also called ‘the big apple'” will say ‘the port of Porto’ …]

In a slight pre-view of an upcoming post about how to do ‘AI’ right in any organisation [hint: not bottom up per se but rather top-down with b-u as a sauce…], there is this little gem about “Efforts fall short in the last mile, when it comes time to explain the stuff to decision makers“. After having fallen short in the first near-complete marathon [ultra ..?] of ‘ETL’ (as here and here, with moderator here).
Well that’s it for this post now.

Sort-a; but quite different from bubblesort or binary sort. Since the above seems to be about the ‘exit’side of ML, where the PoC suddenly finds itself center stage in the spotlight, whereas the mere programmer just wanted to create Art for art’s sake. Which hints at more than the conclusion to the above, i.e., the upcoming post’s storyline which is: the PoC and even the eventual [waaay-down-the-road] production engine will need to be the outcome, final stages, of implementation of a full-on system that fits a slight part of business process transformation. Not the other way around.

Also, let’s not forget that … Oh well see the upcoming posts. All of them. Then read back through history. All approaching-1500 of them.
Or, this:

[Yes that’s the Justice ‘palace’ at the IJ, Amsterdam; don’t blame my mobile from a ferry for the blur… that you’d get from ML, too anyway]

Yes, dear readers, it’s time again to discuss the ramifications of linking up your fridge to the Internet. Because you Need to, or so. Eat-eat-eat, right, never miss a superfluous beat?

But actually, this time it’s about your other business end [among various, more than two I hope for your integral well-being], not as much input-oriented qua foodstuffs but output-oriented. Where the question arises, even much more so, about the Why of hooking up to the ‘net. Since not only the potential privacy loss qua ‘regular’ operation of the data feed already seems much bigger than the benefits, but also the less-regular [hope-fully less frequent I mean] privacy loss diminishes the ROI below the zero line ..? As in this article, pointing at concerns of professionals – not of the ‘business’ concerned but of the support function – regarding their own private [pun intended, though very lame] ‘business’.

What a time to be alive indeed. Aren’t we happy that maybe through this, security and privacy might finally end up in nationwide / global politics discussions … Or would, meta-semantically, not much change when the subject in those circles, would move onto the above?

I’m done. Also:

[Nope! They’re to change clothes, and don’t have [cameras or] any connection, wireless or otherwise; Noordwijk I believe it as]

Nice. Not only was Cyberrrr!insurance a scam because it could so easily be considered warfare (as previously posted here), but now the whole reason to insure is pulled from under the insurance’s feet by declaring that you’ll have no cover period. As here.

So you take out an insurance against burglary. A burglar breaks in; seemingly an illegal act. You get nothing. You paid your premiums for what, exactly ..? Happy insuring! [on the premium receiving end..]

[No, acts of nature were covered already under the operational risk blanket cover…]

Well then:

[If you need me, I’ll be where the spoils are spent …; Alcázar Sevilla – it’s all a bit lopsided]

Just a note on Reading. The place, not so much.
Wouldn’t it be great to have all that matter, be more well-read in the world’s literature. Not only the one of old canon, or even with these added appropriately or just these or these. Since Heloooow! Western-dandyish-veryselectsocietalstratum bias! Hence this might be added, or this.

One might start with this. But not finish with it! Also delve into the Truth of many other works, in particular but far from only, from the world’s wide literature base [the starter series of only 80 already has some but I suspect a better balance may still be found]; and from the great many great list of great works that didn’t fit the short-story format. Since, the idea being that one is bored by seeing too many [being …!?] pages ahead and don’t even start …? How’about showing some stamina? Ploughing through as-yet-apparently uninteresting stuff, one may as well consider that to be meta-learning about … [was temped to fill in: my greatness here but that would be tautological] in general, and Life and the Universe as mere details of that.
After which studies, if done well, one understands a. a huge lot more about the condition humaine, b. brevity of citation or should I say sparsity [but hey I wanted the b to follow b.] of that. Since – who was it – said “Don’t bother me with quotations tell me what you know yourself”, proving the point. And preventing you from ending up a doofus. Is that an appropriate translation of ‘lavendelsnuiver‘..?

I’ll leave you some time now to consider. And react. With:

[What great classical territory / culture … to get a grip on past greatness, towards your future; the Generalife of the Alhambra, Granada]

Some time ago (2017), I posted various thingies about how deep fakes would undo any claim of ‘truth’ [if there ever was such a thing] about court-admissible evidence. And how not much is left, on the defence side.
Now, it seems the same is used in more direct ways as well, on the offence. Like, deep fakes in identity theft.

Which is funny, in a way. ‘Stealing’ someone’s most precious thing, her identity ‘as a human soul’, through deep faking. The deeper parts of the identity, the deeper the fake; philosophically interesting.

And practically … Some, like banks, still want to see a wet signature for access to some bank accounts. Even when just a jpg dropped onto a pdf … Yes that’s still where we are today. The offence, racing in F1 cars, the defence; dapperly paddling with training side wheels.

Never mind. It’s just me. Right?

Also, on a related note; this came in; apparently you are involved in this’all… [?]

[It’s just an illusion …; DC]

OK … now that this has arrived, enhancing this, i.e., even non-GPS’ing drones may be downed by EM(‘P’) blast,

Can one expect that such technology is not used against GPS/GSM/4/5G coordination of protests against those in power, around the world ..?

No. One can’t, and shouldn’t because will as of future-and already-fact, be proven wrong. Anything that is invented, will be used against some humans, irrespective of History’s later opinion of either side(s) that so often is much different, often opposite, of today’s common [4^th Estate] opinions.

[Edited to add: When I drafted the above, Oct 7, the Beeb wasn’t yet on it but now is; corroboration it’s called I believe.]

We learn from history … that all hope is lost.
Cheers! with:

[Some stuff is still good after ages, but will eventually also not be good anymore …; at … was it Manitowoc? Waukesha ..? 1999]

Triggered by some recent comment that this sage peer brought to the table [(not?) like this]:

Why doesn’t Johnny encrypt, still ..??

Since it’s such a hugely powerful tool in securing your organisations’ data, implementing along much privacy protection. When done right, ‘cryption covers a major part of asset protection [in the Confidentiality sense; Availability’s actually higher-risked through it ..!], next to near-in-vulnerabilisation [‘inoculation’ ..?] of your IAM, both based on actually proper data classification [the business ‘process’ executed by knowledgeable 1^st-liners or otherwise practically useless ..!] and supported with of course rock-solid endpoint hardening and protection, and the same for (intermediairy / other) stationary processing facilities.

So that indeed, any data leakage, be it of Seecrut business IP or PII, can be treated as a futile case.

Yeah, the Law of Conservation of Trouble …

• To have the right, correct, 100.00% bug-free implementations is Hard [See: Snake Oil, almost exclusively in the market];
• To do it right, is Hard;
• The same, for key management;
• The same, in prep for / in the bow wake of, new crypt-algo’s re quantum computing;
• The same, for non-re-identification protection like here;
• It’s no use if all the processes around it [like the above classification, IAM; there’s others] aren’t up to it;
• Availability may suffer if any of these isn’t done correctly – you may end up having zero data;
• The same, qua back-up and recovery (-facilities ..!) – who knows their passwords of ten years ago ..? [may be required! Think retention rates, and last viable image of a stable environment];
• In-cloud storage plus processing, (STaaS linked to SaaS, fully outside your proprietary networks) as some parties are already offering, calls for very close scrutiny of the set-up at multiple [OSI 2-8/9, I’d say] levels;
• &c., &c., &tc.

Nevertheless, ‘cryption helps so much, we should all support it ..! Also this sort of bigger Change projects [programs ..?] deserve a good business case. Not budget crumbles, but surely still worth it.

As is this:

[Yeahhh… I have one! – the rare Peterborough Curling Club member’s pin … uncrackable signalling.]

That rotten inside, … insiders are not your real problem.

Either in your organisation where all need to be chained to their drone tasks and are all potential criminals [if so, probably because you treat them as such; the moral rot a.k.a. lack of trust originated with you excepting the very very few exceptions!],
Or in your head, where this mirage of immoral[1] insiders is a mere reflection of your own mind.

Not saying that security behaviour [which trumps awareness, which is fleeting and lost when trying to achieve anything of productive, salary-earning work] is unimportant. But saying that humans as the ‘weakest’ link are a signal that all lines of defence [the real ones, standing between threat and vulnerability; demonstrating here that some ‘controls’ create more or worse vulnerabilities than they protect; the real ones not the fakenews-on-purpose ‘3LoD’ sh.t (euphemism)] before the last one, were crappy. Since not have solved the issues before arriving at the ‘weakest’ link to solve all previous control shortcomings and then some. We had that already ages ago [as here, of a year ago based on decades of seeing such falsety spread by pseudapostles], and it returns … here.
And still it will turns up time and time again; we learn from history social media that no-one learns. Ever more generations join the workforce and flat-out refuse to learn [from praxis and experience (of others)] before they practice. Until you see that actually, humans only are in a position to fail when all other lines of D already have. When a full Champions League winners’ squad is running towards your keeper [your, particular re this, underpaid hence disenfranchised, demotivated workforce] past all defenders, what are your chances ..?

STOP IT!

Get back to solving other people’s problems you are tasked and paid for to solve, not bashing them for your inability to solve them and still want the money.

Oh well, this post probably will re-appear next year. As two things are of fact infinite; the one not being in doubt, when one applies the rigorous definition of ‘infinite’ by Kant [i.e., the ‘keep on trucking indefinitely‘, uncountable, instead of the construct of infinity which leads to some supreme übertranscendental entity as a mind’s construct ONLY]. The other ‘infinite’ thing what we deal with here…

And:

[Ah, those infinite Truths! Like the Mithras’ fight of ration against irrational Force, of nature; as if the latter would ever succumb and not remain part of the world, yin-yang-style, as the First Nations of North America have the Trickster as the very essential half of creation as it still is today, the other half being dull; this, for the latter days’ Mithras ceremonies at Sevilla]

[1] Remember the textbook on this ..? ‘Their’ morality may be much more integer, geared towards all that surround them and they have to live in between [geo-independent though most often, geo-bound their intermittent immediate surroundings]. Where you are the exception and form the outlier, the Other, to be destroyed… Or possibly in due time have re-thought your own purpose [not like Start With The Why, that has been debunked utterly completely], so you can see your errors of thought qua theory of firm [writ small for a reason] and the role of managers as mere facilitators [this, in Dutch] and administrators, not to bother the actual production beyond the minimal.