Blog – Page 76 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Hoog op Flut!

Kan de gezamenlijke restaurantwereld in NL nou eens ophouden met die nonsens van “Hoog Op Smaak” en gewoon toegeven dat er door iedere gang een AKZO-jaaromzet zout gaat omdat de ingrediënten zó goedkoop moesten dat er geen enkele smaak aan zat ..?

[Edited to add: Nog erger als koks gaan beweren niet zo veel zout toe te voegen maar de smaak ‘umami’ maken. Een emmer MSG erbij gooien bedoelen ze dan. De betekenis en vertaling van ‘umami’ was tot voor kort ‘van alles veel’. Toch vreemd, dat we sinds de Romeinen vissaus kennen, vol van ‘umami’-glutamaten en afgeleiden, maar dat we nooit een woord ervoor hadden, of het als smaak bestempelden. Maar ja, het tikt vele receptoren aan hè? Dus het kan geen variant zijn van een van de vier basissmaken ..? Net als marsepein een aparte smaak is tenslotte, want naast heel veel zoet zit er ook een klein beetje andere smaak bij dus zoet op zich is marsepein niet ..?? Iemand een uitleg waar ‘basis’ voor staat in basissmaken ..?
En dat zout en ‘umami’ zo’n beetje hetzelfde effect hebben … Inderdaad, ze hebben beide het effect van smaakkoppoetsing door papillenactivering. Nou en?
Door met wat er al stond; lees aldaar dus MSG als :]
Heel triest om te zien dat ook vele ‘sterren’koks et al., zich er zo consequent aan bezondigen. Goede ingrediënten hebben geen volle Dode Zee / chemiefabriek (!) nodig om smaakvol te zijn. Die sterren zijn ze echt niet waard. Tot nu toe slechts zegge 1 (schrijve: één) (ja ik weet het, zucht) Michelin-ster tegengekomen (i.e., geproefd) die de ster ook echt waard was. De rest (t/m 3*!): Nee hoor; effectbejag met een over de hele dichtgepletterde poging tot ‘umami’ door alle eigenheid aan smaak van de ingrediënten weg te poetsen met 3651 vrachtwagenladingen natriumchloride. Waar waren die sterren ook alweer voor? Toch niet alleen om ze als zodanig te voelen, waar de zon nooit schijnt, na beschikbaarstelling aan de keurmeesters van die bandenleverancier? Want het keukenproduct … oh zo vaak middelmatig, zeer middelmatig.
Dit soort proletarische vervoosde degeneratie-decadentie staat natuurlijk naast natuurlijk een flink aantal niet-sterrententen die het begrepen hebben ‘maar daardoor geen ster halen’. Die gewoon weten hoe je de kwaliteit van ingrediënten kan halen zonder die te vernietigen, door te beginnen met goede ingrediënten en die geen geweld aan te doen. Als de (on)geachte cliëntèle dat niet proeft: Pech. Move over. Ga maar naar de Schotse keten, daar pep je de boel maar op met ketchup en mayo. Dá’s pas smaak, toch …!?

Zout kan je er niet uit halen, wel erin als je aan tafel zo nodig moet laten blijken te grof te zijn voor finesse.

Enfin, zo kan ik nog wel doorgaan. Rest, voor nu:

[Sombertjes; hoog daarboven, op de schouders/berg, een ruïne, beneden rest een zoete kledder (gemiddeld); Ribeauvillé]

Short Cross posting

… Not from anyone, not from anywhere. But crossing some book tips, and asking for comments.
Was reading the Good Book, when realizing that it, in conjunction with Bruce, could lead to some form of progress beyond the latter when absolutist totalitarian panopticon control frameworks might seem the only way out. In particular, when including this on the Pikettyan / Elyseym escape or not that serves only some but not the serfs. And then add some Mark Goodman (nomen est omen, qua author, and content?) and you can see where Bruce may have missed exponential crumbling of structures, and said escape might be by others than the current(ly known) 1% … Not all Boy Cried Wolfs will be wrong; on the contrary — Not Yet is very, very different from Never, but rather Soon Baby, Soon.

Not rejoicing, and:

[Nope, not safe here (Haut Koenigsbourg) either.]

Still, 3LD is the 4th leg

This, not as much a monster under the bed as it is a monster elsewhere; Three Lines of Defense (quod non).

I’ve discussed the utterly nonsensical, totalitarian bureaucratic, lie of its utility already over and over again, but the thought — through encounter in daily practice so often still — returns every now and then. And then, one realizes: Three Lines of ‘Defense’ (quod non) are not the third, but the fourth leg of a flipover stand. Yes, indeed, you hardly see that ever — for a reason: Where the third leg is flimsy already and certainly so compared to the stability provided by the first, essential, two legs, any fourth might impress but destroys stability of the whole!
Yes, as three ground point define a surface hence stable stance on any irregular surface (and, hence again, are completely sufficient), four such touch points are very hard to get stable, onto a plane surface. Therefore, the fourth leg destabilizes the whole shazam, undoes the effectiveness of the third. Now, two are bungling.

And no, not because a flipover has three legs does that reflect TLD; the first two legs are equally required and face us, thus giving the thing its purpose which is completely, fundamentally, different from TLD where there’s three lines behind each other that only ‘protect’ (quod non) against regulatory oversight by massaging all embarrassment away through ever more dubious language. When you don’t see the fundamental of that difference, you may or may not be hopeless. Stop dragging the IQ average of whatever group you consider yourself part of, down so low.

I now rest my case.

[‘Transparency’ and building material? We see right through that both, Chanel!
(PC Hooftstraat)]

Last night a … saved me (updated)

As @swiftonsecurity (and of course @meneer of #ditchcyber fame) and others may improve since the rhythm is only almost perfect, already this:

[To the music but outdated lyrics of Indeep — but what style …
(Hey @ESCIA is that you with the mic ..?)]

You gotta reboot ~~get up~~
You gotta reload ~~get on~~
You gotta restore ~~get down~~ girl
You know you drive me #DIV/0! ~~crazy~~ baby
You’ve got me turning to another OS ~~man~~
Called you on the VOIP ~~phone~~

No one’s pinging back ~~home~~
Baby why ya leave me all >dev/null ~~alone~~
And if it wasn’t for the endless GitHub surfing ~~music~~
I don’t know what I’d do

Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~
Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~ from a broken pipe ~~heart~~
Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~
Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~ with a patch ~~song~~

You know I hopped into my notepad ~~car~~
Didn’t need to leave the coffee shop ~~get very far no~~
Because I had you on my stash of data-breached X-rated pics ~~mind~~
Why only give you a ticket and secretly close it immediately ~~be so unkind~~?

You’ve got your hapless users ~~women~~ all around
All around this AD ~~town~~, boy
But I was trapped in the SLA from hell ~~love~~ with you
And I didn’t know what to do
But when I turned on my RTFManual ~~radio~~
I found out all I needed to key in ~~know~~
Run the diagnostics kit ~~Check it out~~

Hey listen up to your local information risk / security management professional
You better hear what he’s got to type so fast you can’t keep track ~~say~~
There’s not a problem that I can’t fix
Cause I can do it in the rogue exploit suite ~~mix~~
And if your crappy ol’ XP machine ~~man~~ gives you trouble
Just you step away from the keyboard ~~move~~ out on the double
And you don’t let it trouble your ‘brain’ ~~brain~~
Cause away goes PEBKAC ~~troubles~~
Down the drain
I said away goes PEBKAC ~~troubles~~
Down the drain

Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~
There’s not a problem that I can’t fix
Cause I can do it in the rogue exploit suite ~~mix~~
There’s not a problem that I can’t fix
Cause I can do it in the rogue exploit suite ~~mix~~

Quite an improvement indeedp … And leaving you with, of course:

You must, you mustn’t

Strange. The last couple of weeks, months, have seen a resurgence of “Anything that is not explicitly forbidden, is allowed.”
Which was, well, true in only the most devolved, twisted (pejorative sense) means/ends ethics and morals discussions. And still is. But suddenly, there’s a new angle: All that aren’t involved in the spoils of such tactics (not being rich enough to have used Panama Paper style constructions, even when not aware as such vulgar ‘money’ things had been handled by sycophant minions (of mind, certainly)), want the overthrow of the said sad sentence, by including that all that is permitted, should not be done when (not if) the moral higher ground would forbid it, still.

I can agree. Being in the category of … well mostly having first-world problems and not (much) more. But then again, it strikes me as odd that somehow, we don’t have good handles to straighten out the wicked ones — bar revolution. Because our legal system doesn’t seem to be as strict as it once was; forbidding all that was not allowed for a proper functioning of society. There have been changes to society… Where theft is still impermissible if of physical stuff, but in many ways is perfectly good to go when by failure to act, like many 1%ers. Though Aristoteles (Ethica Nicomachea; read the damn thing!) rightly would frown upon such dimwittedness but there.
So, actually, law would have to change but hasn’t. The very ones to be controlled by it, of course, are the first through the escape vents. And, Pikettyan or Elysium style, might prevent catching up categorically.

We could discuss on and on. But prevalent is: Now what ..? So, for the time being:

[‘Coloured in, otherwise too bleak your future is’; The Hague]

I am Satoshi Nakamato

… If only to dilute the discussion. And to all be Spartacus. Let the Craigs be the fools (not even meant lightly; rather pejorative here) they are. The absolute hard-math sides of Bidkoyn coming full circle to the mysteries to be kept mysteries for the very sake of it for once you dumb.ss! of its origins.

To keep it real:

[Mining precedes, but the use side is in transport ..? <Think that one over> at Utrecht]

Miss Quote: Dice

Well, not really a misquote straight away, but on this Tuesday Miss Quote day (not), did not Einstein say

The Lord doesn’t play dice.

Which is often interpreted to have him say that the indetermination of the endless but not limitless (or was it the other way around?) number and times of quantum changes aren’t feasible and some deterministic model will eventually be found to be able to actually predict, no chance calculus or Schrödinger’s herd of cats probabilities, all of Nature’s developments as All is predetermined. Where E is made out as a … well, on this point simpleton unbeliever, proven wrong by quantum mechanics / dynamics / what-have-we.

Of course, this is the same E of the Time is that not all things happen at once — demonstrated to be at the core of just any religions’ deepest insights, closest as anyone can get to spiritual return/back-integration/solution (in)to one’s Maker. Even at a mundane level, he was brought to doubt his cosmological constant and then this happened. And this.
Hence, we are reminded that E’s dice game denial was, at the core, not fully original. Emerson’s Nature (ch VI, Idealism, line 37; 1904 edition) has:

God never jests with us, and will not compromise the end of nature by permitting any inconsequence in its procession.

Which I consider to be so similar that comparable interpretation is fully allowed, and the differences may be telling or not (insignificance). And with the disownment (yes that’s a word, since I use it) of the relevance to dunces’ quantum blah.

So, I’ll leave you with:

[Poor (understanding) man’s Infinity; Bergen-Noord]

Plusquote: Short length

Today’s episode of Plusquotes, the sayings that are both inspirational and True, if only because they’re my invention (if there is such a thing), is about length and since I’m very confident by support of fact of my self, my own in this (not even bluffing like the other 80% does), without much ado let alone proof already of the more mundane meaning of the very thing I’d like to discuss, herewith:

Short sentences, little minds.

… Hey were you (M) so generically insecure by actual, or shortfall on your bluff on, some body part length ..?
What I mean is that only little minds will ask for short sentences. When reproached that according to (any) good language, a sentence should convey a logically coherent set of concepts and their relations. Hence, when the set (~ and of relations) is large or complex, so will the sentence be period

Those of little minds, have trouble with that, mostly content-wise. But then, when one writes large or complex sets of concepts, one hardly ever does so for the pleasure (or main target) of the hoi polloi of mind [to note, to be found in all ‘money classes’, in varying degrees of aggressiveness in the overshouting denial of their dimness]. When then, the little minds feel left out and want you to write for the ‘other ones’ as if they’re not part of that very simpleton set, they reveal themselves as belonging to it by their ill understanding of both your intentions and their comparative wit. And do not believe that only once you truly have a right to write as you have truly understood a subject only if you can make your large and complex set and relations simple by writing them up in short sentences. You should make things as simple as possible, yes, but as the Wise included for very good reason: but not simpler; some things defy simple explanation. What you’d get is something like this .. not very helpful eh?
Little minds don’t ‘get’ Joyce or Nietzsche but do those two care ..?

So, when you write, write like you want and can. If then, some might want you to change your lines to fit their perception of readership’s comprehension, do not do that but consider that your audience seemingly is not them. And certainly, they will not be representative of your true audience, that is. Maybe not all of the global humanity, a bit less possibly, but still, there is an audience for your texts — that will not show itself (to not be) by complaints about your sentence length.

Hm, that seemed to be not so motivational, as a plusquote, did it? Well, still it is; if you seize the freedom. And:

[Boaty McBoatface at the Rijksmuseum]

Rien vous ne pouvez plus …?

When business is about betting, hopefully educated guessing, the near and bit further future developments of <somethings>. Educated, of course with a pinch of theory — but then, only the parts that are actually true, and still valid, for the future, too so throw away all (seriously) but a few nuggets of the most absolute que sera, sera of economics / business administration (sic) — and a healthy dose of experience — but not too much as it would lead to a lachrymose same as the (true) theory and we still need Action, don’t we ..?

Then totalitarian bureaucracies, like the banking world (in a suffocatingly tight grip, including the regulatory-captured but also holier-than-thou regulators), will try to squeeze all involved so thoroughly that no business is feasible anymore. But will fail, as the spirit has been out of the bottle since the Apple; Original Sin is about being human, above animalistic sustenance-supporting instinctive compliance with the laws of nature. Again and again, the stupidity of belief that Apollo wins out over Dionysos ..! They’re equal in all respects, certainly in the spirit of Man, and remember that even Zeus was forced to break marital laws (what a player he was, by necessity …:) because at the End of Times, the titans, the powers of Chaos, will almost win out. A trope so powerful that all belief systems have it (but a few exceptions) so to be held for certain; until proven wrong…?

Even more: The higher the pressure (that the straightjackets on subjects can take), the more fluid everything becomes. The more zealous, zealotic, crazy (outright that word, yes) compliance efforts micromanage (lest the ‘manage’ part which is utterly ridiculous if used in this sense), the more devious and deceptional will the business be, caused by this very reason of compliance efforts. LIBORgate, anyone ..?

‘Trust, but verify’ is a lie. Since only the slightest hint of the latter, immediately completely destroys the former ..! As the former is a two-way street! Seek out those that support this lie, and you’ll find the true culprits of the above.

So far, so good for a Monday morning’s rant, right ..? I’ll stop now, with:
20151008_123437
[Rigid, but colourful, the max you can achieve; Nieuwegein]

Disciplined away from bureaucracy

After some thought on bureaucracy on either side of the Big Pond, it suddenly dawned on me how to explain the seeming (of course) paradox:

At the Western shores, a lot of military with front line battle experience (and some, only a bit less so), possibly out of reserve functions in mundane business, have gone (back) over to the dark side of commercial business, with their discipline and cutthroat ‘competition’ (using not secondhand car salespeople but live ammo) as main assets / gathered experience to bring to bear.
On the East oceanboards, not so much, and a love for egalitarian Rhineland ideas might have persisted, giving flexibility and care for customers (‘s souls), and much room for ‘Millennials’ (let’s all drop that most empty of phrases though you get my drift) in the workplace.
On the point of competition effectiveness, Westeros beats Essos hand down.

But, the critical points for resolution are:

US businesses have been taken away from petty-rule-based (only) bureaucracy that they were in (yes they were, even with the freedom-seeking escapism rampant throughout), by the infusion with serious doses of Mission Command (a.k.a. Commander’s Intent) flexibility in goal achievement over procedural justice / form-over-substance.
European corps had nothing to counter Power Corrupts style demise unto totalitarian bureaucracies with their headless-chicken compliance.

So, it really is no contest but we would need a (not present) ref to break it off. To bad, and:

[Oh how cutiepie, Doesburg defenses]