Blog – Page 83 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Some quotes, out of context

Indebted to David Graeber’s Debt here, for the following which for a change is just a bunch of quotes completely out of context, even worse on the representativeness point, and to make matters … worse, maybe, … some remarks from Yours Truly…

Rather than seeing himself as human because he could make economic calculations, the hunter insisted that being truly human meant refusing to make such calculations, refusing to measure or remember who had given what to whom, for the precise reason that doing so would inevitably create a world where we began “comparing power with power, measuring, calculating” and reducing each other to slaves or dogs through debt. (p.79) — This may be why so many bureaucrats, and many an auditor behaving within the worst corners of that category, appear to behave as if in debt ..?

If someone fixing a broken water pipe says, “Hand me the wrench,” his co-worker will not, generally speaking, say, “And what do I get for it?” — even if they are working for Exxon Mobile, Burger King, or Goldman Sachs. … One might even say that it’s one of the scandals of capitalism that most capitalist firms, internally, operate communistically. True, they don’t tend to operate very democratically. Most often they are organized around military-style top-down chains of command. But here is often an interesting tension here, because top-down chains of command are not particularly efficient: they tend to promote stupidity among those on top and resentful foot-dragging among those on the bottom. (pp.95-96) — The rest of the discussion over the natural tendencies in corporate internal/external behavior echoes society’s many comments, including mine on this blog…

Exchange, then, requires formal equality — or, at least, the potential for it. This is precisely why kings have so much trouble with it. (p.109)

Rabelais places the encomium in the mouth of one Panurge, a wandering scholar and man of extreme classical erudition who, he observes, “knew sixty-three ways of making money — the most honorable of which was stealing”. (p.124) — I may want to rid my LinkedIn profile of some niceties …

[Comparing Chapter Eight, Credit versus Bullion (p.211–) with ‘Piketty’ might make a great grad+ thesis ..?]
[Similarly, p.383– may be read and viewed, analysed, in light of “blockchain currencies’ ” lofty promises of money without recourse to state fiduciants but to anonymous (and masses of) trustees.]

OK then, as a final one, important for those that still consider Adam Smith’ Wealth to have some modicum of value still:
For Smith, the pursuit of wealth beyond a point where one has achieved such a comfortable position was pointless, even pathological. (p.399)

Which indicates the point I’m still aiming for… And:

[Why you’re looking at the ceiling of my garden shed ..? Palazzo Nicolaci, Noto again]

Your valued info at risk

Ah, just noted: A great many of you may have switched (or, c’mon don’t be a laggard or too late, will soon switch) to self-assessments of risks, even to the level of detail of data security (as part of information security, part of IRM, part of ORM, part of ERM, part of just-freakin’-perfectly-normal-or-are-you-kiddin’-me mundane run-of-the-mill average daily management of which ‘governance’ is the most preposterous windbag label).
Which is all very well, to determine at the shop floor levels, that apparently are the last hold-outs of actual business knowledge beyond the mumbo-jumbo of meddle management (sour joke intended), what the risks, and particularly also, Value of information (data…) processed might be.

But … You’d miss half or more of the picture, then. The value you attach to the info, may very well be what you’d be prepared to fork out to protect it (balancing estimated frequencies of intermittent losses versus continuous costs flying out the window), but you then forget that the attacker isn’t after the value you attach, but the value to the cracker. Which may be completely different. Think, e.g., Sony (and the many others alike): comparatively, there was hardly a nickel value in the ‘stolen’ (exfiltrated, or egressed since it was lying around so obviously) data from the Sony perspective. But the value was enormous from the hacker perspective — whatever the innocuous data was, the mere exposure was of such import that APT’ ing around apparently was worth it.

Now, how’zat (women have deliveries, men have Balls) for all the other info throughout your glocal enterprise/empire ..? Similar to same, I presume.
So, … what about the budgets to be made available to counter data theft/robbery/whatever comparison to physical-world expropriation you’d like to use? And still not trying to overshoot in comparison to the value you yourselves establish for yourselves by yourselves, or you’d run the risk (chance close to 1) of splattering any flexibility and usability under tons of ‘controls’ (quod non, BTW). But then, not protecting ‘regular’ data enough, might expose it too easily — which might be rational but will cost you, e.g., through EU data protection fines … ;-|

So, you’ll not only have to do the multiplication of this and this, but extend in other dimensions as well…
Oh well, the world gets more complicated every day… and:

[Your data protection; Noto]

Who needs slaves ..?

When you can have serfdom? The first, merely meaning physical-legal possession, burdensome. The second one, utter dependence by the subservient of the Master. So, ‘we’ (ahum speak for yourselves) aren’t slaves of SocMed, we’re ‘merely’ not merrily their serfs. Which correlates with the Hobson’s anti-choice to walk away and suffer the withdrawal consequences… Freedom to starve, in the sense of the withdrawal and the great may intertwined and softer linked spheres of being.
Let’s not get depressed. Let’s get detached. And this.
Or what?

Oh, this:

[Once, ruling large portions of the ‘known’ world from here. Now, not so much. Aachen]

The year of No More Oops

… Hoping this year, reps will wise up and don’t treat (insult) their valued customers like they should’ve known they themselves are, i.e., like little children. Why, oh why, would anyone still respond to socmed complaints with “Oops, something’s not right” and all that follows is empty chatter offering no solution at all but first, foremost and exclusively disclaiming any own accountability for poor (or worse) service delivery that the reps are accountable for — just like anyone operating outside the organization’s perimeter yes including outsourced functions however deep subcontracted.
Hey org: I don’t give a batsh.t about how you organise things, and that you employ so many m.rons on the contact surface that matters most… and often, found out, in layers behind that too. Expecting internal selection being proficient in finding the worst cases and setting them as examples through promotions into management all the way to the top. Just ensure that next time around, you have grown-up reps giving definitive, non-conflicting answers that for once don’t turn out to be literally untrue (i.e., lies).

Oh well, lawyers in the wings… and:

[Reprazent house; you kno where …]

Bunch of quote’lets

Just a short list of quotes (#2…), from someone after a life-long study:

“Institutions are the enemy of creativity.”

“So Codes are the mental limitations of short men, short of experience, short of imagination, short of courage, short of common sense. … Inevitably a bureaucrat is a short man, however long his legs may be. His is a mind only fit for a bureau. He is undersized in most respects. … Here is the fatal weakness of Democracy: the bureaucrat. The fatal weakness of Democracy does not lie in gangsterism or political chicanery [both more intertwined than visible on the surface in NL these days; ed.] or civil disobedience or anything like them. It lies in this dumb sheep-like submission to Authority, “the drinking of the vanity of office.”

One need not subscribe to all of the man’s ethics or morality, but have anything of non-temerity to see the truth.

Fittingly:

[Again a tossing out of Codes…; Racine WI]

Aquariunism

After reading Graeber’s exposé on the confluence of ‘human economy’ and communism (Yes. Though those that foulmouth ‘commies’ are probably too low on the IQ scale to be able to grasp the actual ideas…), I wondered: Where in this spectrum is the original-Greek or -Celtic or -whatwasit idea on Golden Man, Silver Man and even Bronze Man (or was that current aeon man) having disappeared after their utter success vis à vis the gods, and where is the (return of the) Age of Aquarius ..?
Especially where the latter might have built the original Sphinx, and bored out the sarcophagus with some tool too advanced for almost today’s science even and the tabernacle having been some nuclear device at today’s cutting edge ..? Yes I’m all in on (Von) Däniken now … Is Global Warming causing a similar Destruction of latter day Neverhavebeensolowonaverage-societyculture ..?

But let that not deter you. Still think about an escape. Into space, or here on earth by means of social reform. Problem is; the percentage of nutters seems constant or growing, whereas societies have been built to sustain (tolerate) inversely proportional percentages of a.holes. We may be doomed after all, with so many (still putting their children into this world but meanwhile vehemently) believing in After us, the Deluge; literally. [Yeah I know, that literally as figuratively was left in the dust of 2015 but this here use is the original, very much valid in 20-16 ..!] And also, since the Mayas seem to have been right about, well maybe not the Aquarius part but the Singularity very certainly.

Which leads to:

[Archeological artifact; Edinburg. Had one, too, in the ’70s ..! In those times antediluvian, immemorial, when even I was cool (..?) — I remember mine was flashier — of course.]

A footnote to theses

Not to Theseus, however close.
But on the superfluence of latter-day (PhD- in particular) theses in printed form. Wouldn’t they be much better on-line, in a format with clickable hyperlinks ..? Wasn’t that what hyperlinking was ‘invented’ for ..!?
Why then still rely on the old ‘footnote’ reference system… If only b/c some geriatric referees still want to see their own name printed and care less or not at all about hits. With the democratization of even science, wouldn’t hit scores (Errm, weighted by the authority of the visitors …! How? We’ll figure something out) be a better validity measure?

Yes, of course this would require a backlog of old printed articles to be put on-line, including linking their reference lists. But this effort should (sic) be minute, compared to today’s paper production — I mean, the production of papers. And, in the end, needed anyway.
Oh, another inhibitor for the oldies: their references can now be checked automatically (I guess (appropriately)) and their assumed notoriety will be ~~disclosed~~ exposed for what it is — which may not be liked by all.

But then, on-line theses would be much better readable since the Definitions and Research Description parts might be separate html docs, split away from the core science content.

Many more advantages, and this:

[No longer dungeoned but in Church, still stalactitic; Edinburg]

The new, once again

… Just to drop the note that Over 50 is the new Under 30.

Because somehow I need that to be so, since recently.
And, for this:
90dbc931-885c-4063-b469-656cb45c9b72-medium
[Plucked from some LI post.

And, because it’s true. All the brave new world-changing ideas that were dreamt up over the past decade, will now have to integrate in sane society’s organisation and ethics. Which will need that straddle of understanding of freshness (need) and classic history / societal ethics. Which, I will speak for myself here most certainly hopefully not exclusively (huh), the (only just) Over 50’s can deliver.

I rest my case for now. But will return. And:

[Once innovative, but could’ve known; B(er)lin(g)]

Information does(n’t) Matter

Another consequence of the analysis mentioned before about answers flowing upward through infosystems and command and inquiries/questions flowing down: When the latter get viewed as anti-data or even anti-information, we see Information Theory in action.

Where without the creation of potential (difference) by an inquiry standing ready at, say, a sensor [abstracting for a tiny moment away from the complexity that could be in any sensor, assuming it a math point] to capture some data it may produce, the potential may not pull away the data created by a Heisenbergian creation (-by-measurement ..!?) of the data/anti-data pair. Leaving the anti-data, the uncertainty behind. Is this the creation, the maintenance, or the destruction of a Schrödinger’s measurement ..?

More operationally: In what way does this interpretation induce metaphoric (?) insight into the connection between physical world, ‘signals’ (as in Shannon and other Info Theory), and continuous (!?)/discretised sensor-data streams..?
[For once skipping the bullying of those not understanding the fundamental nature of the continuous/(math-)discrete divide]

Well, there’s also this:

[The gift of far-sightedness. SE Sicily you recognize of course]

A horse needn’t be a horse off course

Maybe @DARPA can elucidate … Why would anyone need four-legged soldier-helpers ..? First there was robodog, then LS3 that failed so may end up in your next indeterminableoriginmeat-burger. Next, maybe, a fully armoured full exoskeleton.
Which might do away with the humanoid innards in the near future (after that), losing some great many pounds of ballast (similarly, are drone pilots as physically fit as the bunch out there in the air on their weapons platforms ..?) and also losing a great deal in time- and otherwise (situational-closeness hence -fine-granularity) challenged ethical perspective. I.e., no weak knees anymore just shoot whatever moves.

But, back to the Helper idea: Why ..!? Why four legs, or even two ..? Instability assured… And Nature has donned animals with legs to get over tree trunks and boulders and the like yes, but maybe only because natural evolution only happens from the happenstantial last known good configuration not the clean slate ‘we’ now have when designing <anything that may silently carry some possibly superhuman load over rough terrain>.
Which is to say: Aren’t hugely more simple (contradictio semantics intended) machines possible with … even yesterday’s technology, that can do the same with no legs or completely different configurations of them? E.g., have ‘spurious’ legs on the back to be able to roll over (on purpose!) and still walk on? Tracks ..? Number Five is Alive! Silent ops can be achieved easily, just ‘invite’ some Rolls-Royce experts…
One only needs to add a gun of whatever size, and some Autonomous in the ops, and hey presto! A possibly much lighter than average soldier (easily stacked even more uncomfortably (possible?) in some freight plane for transport to the theatre) carrying possibly more, and a bigger gun a piece. No weak knees, or remotely operated — wouldn’t limited-autonomy ‘soldiers’ be able to be steered in platoons at a time from far away (and far away from anything officer-like or mayhem may ensue [disclaimer: once briefly was one]) and have an easy development of ‘grounded-drone’ armies.

After which, the Singularity takes over these all. Or just a bunch of the most capable.
Or, nearer future, some party being more than average removed from the artificial intelligence of the S i.e., some rogue general. How to stop such a guy (F/M) ..?

OK, you know where to drop the Challenge prize money, thanks. … … Or, the whole thing’s just a hoax to throw researchers of the too democratic inclination, off path since the research into the above is already progressing impressively… And:

[Hung from not hang over though that might (??) still apply to the operator; DC of course]