Blog

Gold per capita

Just remembering that line of thought about some ‘handicap’ per country in sports…

  • The original list of Rio 2016 [standings per 16 August ! due to post scheduling ahead of time], sorted per Gold medals, top 50, in this here list
  • The same, but ‘compensated’ by dividing by (GDP per capita times capitae), in that there list
  • And, medals total, handicapped similarly over here.

Pick your country and … have fun with the bragging rights…
Yes, a lot can be said about this; but then also include discussions on colonial history, (sports-supportive) culture over the centuries, et al …

[After drafting and scheduling, this came through. Party/scoop poopers! And desperately lazy using so little of your own, and relatively random, info…!]

Dronecatcher ..?

Was tinkering with ideas to get rid of drones around / over high-risk sites, e.g., critical infra (sites).

You know, like the radiant type of energy production.
Where drones pose a somewhat new but pesky risk. The newness, of course being not much of it when all sorts of attack with either plain vanilla or modified-to-autopilot RC controlled planes (possibly built in one’s garage) were around already and would hardly need any (suspicious) infra to take off and do their nefarious thing.
Though the proliferation of the new heli-style drones somehow raised the frequency/chance side of the risk equation. And, maybe, the ease of modding for sufficient tech capabilities of the kind you’d not want a.k.a. payload weights.

So, apart from the sudden realization that in times past, recent included, little did we know of the defenses surrounding critical infra against the classical winged type drones, we have the question: What now ..?

There seem to be two solutions required:
1. How to detect a drone, possibly rogue
1.5. How to handle false positives/negatives
2. How to down it.
Because I don’t color inside the lines only.

The first, might be feasible with some mini-/micro-installations of e.g., phased array radar in scan and track modes.
The second… My favorite would be a healthy dose of rounds, e.g., like a couple of full-on Goalkeepers around your install. Or have the lamo version of only (cross-?)beaming the GPS around your target out of the sky, or lasering it beyond melting point. These latter two might be the more difficult ones, qua aim/range specifity needed. But the former will probably not fly too well with overzealous environs freaks [note: not against the reasonable ones]. Oh well, we’ll just throw up some net structure when the threat is imminent — quick reloads available ..??

And there’s still the issue of not shooting two birds with(out) one drone. I.e., how to ensure you’re not offing all sparrows in a cloud, and miss the single drone’let that disturbed the birdies in the first place. Well, Why should I come up with the lame side-solutions ..?

Also:
20141002_123020[1]
[The unexpected, but disastrous scenario…]

In the sphere of Language

Off the cuff. Sphären is closer to Finnegan’s Wake than it is to Nietzsche. Qua language, here and there.

That’s all. And don’t read FW in Dutch; the translabitt is flubby. The others in Dzjerman, qualitate qua.

20160805_151324[1]
[Emulatable qua plomb. The Dutch background, not so much.]

Plusquote: Qua Quantification

Qua quantification, maximal isn’t the optimal that minimal is.

If quantification were good, or worth pursuing even anything more than a bit or minimally, Yoda would talk about hidden Markow chains not The Force.
Not all that can be counted, counts, and not all that counts, can be counted. Where ‘not all’ is to be read different than latter-day simpletonian, but as antediluvian ‘none’. Capice ..?

Many more arguments might go here. Suffice to say that ‘evidence-based’ science is a scam. Only those that are too stupid (let’s put it like it is) to ‘get’ the value of philosophy (and ethics etc.etc. as part of it), may not understand it. But as the vast masses don’t have a clue how their car works — chemical reactions within the pistons, anyone? how ’bout the programming of the cabling that controls it all? — but still use it, NO you not understanding does NOT mean it’s nonsense, in your case to the contrary.

To return to the positive of the Plusquote…: All may have a say in matters of society and the ‘control’ (quod non) of its infrastructure including all ‘critical’ sectors like energy, security and finance…

Oh that may be too much of a stretch but still…:
20160805_143215[1]
[OK, … quantify this … NO not even the qualifier Amsterdam is correct, it’s Dordrecht and even that doesn’t capture the picture…]

Rio per capita

… Is the medal list per capita out already ..?
[Spoiler: next Thusday’s post has some results for the below…]
For surely, just adding up medals per ‘country’ is ridiculous. When some country may send two athletes (four?) to some contest and can pull from, e.g., 10M citizens, how much infrastructure (economically, culturally etc.) can it muster, compared to some country that has a potentials pool of, e.g. 300M ..?
[Including that some form of compensation should be available for the very fact that population- and surface-wise smaller countries have a much lower ‘pyramid’ of local contestants challenging each other for better performance, and less physical room for training/contest facilities, uniform marketing hence sponsoring, and societal recognition to be had — if at all, see the following.]

Bragging about some idiotic sort of ‘we’ that has collected 1000 medals over the decades, is double nonsense. How many of the medal winners were allowed to procreate so prolifically that, genetically, the ‘we’ is now justified, gene pool wise? Or rather, how many of the medal winners were neglected by society so that they died in ignominy and often even poverty ..!? That’s quite contrary to the ‘we’, those medals should be discounted from any total …

So, where is it, the Per Capita medals list of, e.g., Rio’16 ..?

[No, the Netherlands wouldn’t climb very much higher; close to median in population as it is, and same qua performance (?).]

Next, what would a handicap system look like ..?

And:
20150311_122327_HDR[1]
[a.k.a. ‘The Medal Race’ — or is it a commentary on the financial industry in the midst of which it lies beached ..? [spoiler: yes it is]; Zuid-As Amsterdam]

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…]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord