Blog – Page 84 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

KVZP’ers

Euhm, er is nog steeds de grote waterscheiding tussen enerzijds ‘vaste’ dienstverbanden en anderzijds per-uur inhuurbare/dumpbare ZP’ers, lijkt het wel. Ja, er zijn wat moeizame tussenvormen gevonden; het tijdelijk contract (vast tot het niet vast meer is), de urenopdracht (ingeschatte inzet — waar de opdrachtgever met een …smoes wel onderuitkruipt), etc., maar echt zoden aan de dijk zet het niet. Problemen te over; pensioen’verplicht’ingen, sociale zekerheid(sopbouw, -rechten en –solidariteit), inkomenszekerheid (waar een ‘vast’ dienstverband, hoewel absoluut even snel op de tocht staand als een vaste opdracht, wél een hypotheekzekerheid is en een grotere financiële reserve niet), enzovoorts enzoverder.
Vraag is nu of er al eens is bestudeerd hoe het idee van kort-verbandvrijwilliger uit defensiekringen zou kunnen worden vertaald buiten de sector. Want het lijkt alsof ondanks het trage imago juist defensiekringen organisatiekundig alwéér mijlenver voorlopen op de rest, de oh zo veel flitsender verklaarde kwijlebabbelzelfverdedigingshulpelozen.

Arme KMKTDOs (KanslozenMetKuddesTeDrijvenOndergeschikten) … en:

[Uitkijkend over, zonder grip; Noto]

Meldt uzelve, out of control

Met al die seminars en cursussen over de Wet meldplicht datalekken lijkt het wel of het meldplichtprocedurenaarbinnenrammen dé oplossing is voor al uw privacy-problemen.
Terwijl het natuurlijk niet meer is dan het perfect regelen van het naar buiten toe rondroepen van de totaal transparante schuld zodra (niet als) er iets misgaat.

Over het voorkomen dat beter is dan genezen (en dat is implementatie van de meldplicht-procedures nog verre van), horen we een stuk minder. Hooguit bij degenen die nu én zometeen de kous op de kop krijgen; dat alles anders moet terwijl het a. nu vaak al best prima geregeld is, b. zometeen niet beter zal zijn (feit bij voorbaat), c. a en b gelden binnen de kaders van de nu en dan geldende organisatorische belemmeringen van budget, tijd en wil van boven, om de zaken beter te regelen.
Het kan ook anders anders: preventief. Leest en ziet.

En ook:

[Zonder privacy, een saaie wereld …; Zuid-As maar da’s duidelijk]

Bow the Stork Tie

When analyzing the Stork methodology for EU-wide federated eID- and authentication methods and technology, again one stumbles (rather, ‘ they’ do) over the bow tie of CIA, mostly C, controls. Too bad. Usually, ENISA(-involved) stuff is Great quality. Now, quite too much less so.
Which is too bad. To note, we already commented on the classical CIA rating (incl the bow tie fallacy) before. Now, the CIA seems to have something to bring to bear on CIA as well. Better study hard …!

Oh well …:

[Weaving transparency and stability, Cala at Hoofddorp again]

SocMed usage trends

FYI, some overview of SocMed platform usage, for your study and divertissement — did you already know them all, and what would this all mean for your strategy and 2016 tactics ..?
Plain from Aurelie Valtat, a very good read in its own right:

So, … No Medium in the list, also no WordPress et al ..?
One would expect that, according to this:

So, … again … There’s no overview available for all media combined. You’ll have to puzzle and guess forward into 2016 … Good luck.

Deinduction

OK. To be, think, human, two things seem to be required:
No, not the dichotomy of deduction versus induction. Not so literally (literally, I mean like owemygawd). But the top-to-ground-then-back-up-again ‘logical’ goal-directed problem-solving reasoning, versus the speculative wandering of the mind. Perspiration, and Inspiration. Taking correlation for causation, versus fuzzy-logic supported hypothesizing. OK, I admit I threw in the fuzzy logic part to confuse, and to discombobulate your comprehension.
But still, therein lies the foundation of Theories, the brickwork of thinking: Is there a priori knowledge, or is everything we know only valid within its own framework of reference..? Is the definition of definition circular or not, or in some circle..? Should, must be, to be basis for theory-building.
Expanded upward by Kuhn and Lakatos, drilled down by a great many, philosophers mostly — that haven’t delivered workable answers yet. Not workable at least, to span the gap in between neurobiology and psychology. Which is where AI-as-we-know-it will have its place, after which it will be vastly expanded to cover it all. Maybe not individually embodied, but will.
And, there’s no either/or. There’s the spectrum ..!!

And all this, relevant for the grounding (both ways, please) of ‘Big Data’. Think that one through!

Also,

[Close, but no torte in the Sacher Stube…]

More valid today than in 2008

Because everyone and their dog noted the Good Ol’ Days of housing price ridiculousness have returned and the bwankers’ moronity has never gone away, the following vids are of more import than ever:
Part 1: here;
part 2: here;
part 3: here;
part 4: here.

That’ll be all for now; recovering from my Abrams birthday party still. And:

[Trend’s just a matter of perspective. Mo’ money, no problem equals Zuid-As Amsterdam]

RCSA is close to BAU

Close, as in no cigar yet (has the US ban on Cuban import been lifted already?).
But definitely, Risk Control Self-Assessments would, if carried out properly, be that major part of management’s daily (sic) chores that wouldn’t need annual get-togethers coaxed by outsiders (sic) but would be Business As Usual in operational practice. Maybe needing some periodic (weekly? monthly? certainly more than as now weakly annually) departmental review gathering but not a stage show as if this is the holy grail of business information flow. After which the ‘second line’ (as the back not even middle office function) receives the (right) info and acknowledges that the ‘first’ line has so much better sensors since they’re the first line par excellence, integrates the info into the upward report flow and reverts to fine-tuning the tools they provide to first-liners, and furthermore does … nothing. Second line is helpers, not dictators-by-soft-smothering. When it would turn out that all the high-quality hence qualitative (the reverse for quantitative) risk pics cannot be easily integrated into one pic, that’s too bad for the integrators but an appropriate (!) reflection of reality.

And if, on the other hand, first-liners need to be taken away from their actual productive work to sit in some song-and-dance by second-liners because it was so decreed by ‘governance’ levels (emperor’s clothes!), the very objectives will not be achieved. Since the ‘do something’ by deep-lying incompetence has lead to the wrong turn into a blind alley whereas the broad avenue (something like Younge Street) between wilderness and high (?) culture.

[I scheduled this post a couple of weeks ago for release in a couple of weeks but new developments seem to speed things up. For my many posts against Form over Substance … just search this blog for ‘TLD’ or bureaucracy …]
Won’t rant (too much) on; keep it to RCSA = BAU + quite some ε still, and:

[Distorted? Only your picture is, here for a change, by standing too close; true reality is not at the Edinburg Royal Mile!]

One IoTA FYI

To close off [almost, since @KPN fraud themselves away from bankruptcy by series of outright lies to customers and tort] the year with a wild shot, ahead:
There is value in the information analysis in IoT, as described in Gelernter and many since, of the two-way flow of information. One, flowing up are information in the form of answers as aggregations or pattern matched tuples(ets); the other going down, being both commands and inquiries/questions.

This fits the IoT world snugly, and should be taken into account when developing IoTAuditing frameworks:
What we’re after of course in all of auditing — and this we consider self-evident or else go back to study auditing fundamentals, from agency theory! — is the controls that keep the quality of the back/forth i.e. down/up information flows within (client-!)required margins. No more! But be aware of who the client really is, not the one doing the actual paying. So, we may focus on the integrity of the information flows first and foremost, then the continuity (availability), and then confidentiality as an afterthought.
With neat break-downs to isolation, appropriate input/output buffering (anyone still aware of the difference between an interrupt and a trap? If not, take a hike and learn, and weep), integrity controls above all. And some thing on (establishing) the quality of aggregation and of the questions being pushed down — when the wrong questions get asked e.g. by lack of understanding of the subject matter (sic), as is so very commonplace in the vast majority of organisations today, the wrong results will turn up from within the data pool (reporting ‘up’wards).

And of course there’s the divide between
the operational world where actual business is done (either administratively in offices though one could argue (i.e. proof beyond recovery) that this isn’t actually doing anything worthwhile, or producing stuff), and
the busybodies world ‘above’ (quod non) that, which thinks (wrongly) to be able to ‘control’ and ‘steer’ the productive body, sometimes rising itself into the thin air levels of absolute ridicule (by) branding itself ‘governance’.
But do re-read all of last year’s posts and weep. But do also see the implications for variance in the integrity, availability, and confidentiality needs at various (sub)levels.

And:

[The 2016 way is up; Cala at Barça]

3D printing hinting at breakthroughs

As 3D printing will see more of ‘breakthrough’ developments in 2016 … hold it, I mean, hope and want.
Since, there’s still no clarity whether and when.
Because reasons. One of them being: There’s no iPod of 3D printing yet. And people see, and fear, the cartridge costs; more so when you consider your need for many more than just ink in colours but also all sorts of hard-to-keep(?)-plastic plastics et al. And there’s space issues, 3D printers playing out in 3D space even more than the 2Ds did, especially when you’d want to print larger stuff.
And, not to forget, the major, almost overriding difficulty still on the design side of things; versatility biting and choking ease of use.

Oh you may say that the larger stuff will be printed elsewhere, like the A0s you have now (but you don’t unless you’re a design agency). Which would also take care of the cartridge part. Indeed, as it will also take care of the closeness-, tailoring, and versatility parts. Middle grounds… may be off the balance sought.

So, a moron-usable cheap but effective and high-quality contraption could help. But isn’t near the horizon yet. A fool-proof design interface could help. But fools are so ingenious…

Hope certainly helps, for the time being. And:

[Pray the way you please, Oak Park again but oft missed]

Mobile vision

Twas bryllyg, and ye slythy toves / Did gyre and gymble in ye wabe
The brilly side has deteriorated, unfortunately, due to the great many that don’t avail themselves of the proper tools for the proper usage. [A CEO with you, is still a CEO]

No, really: when the ultrahyperventilating crowd decided to warp-speed run after the ‘any platform’ and subsequently ‘mobile first’ crazes (duly so identified), they forgot that when something’s meant to be visually interpreted, all the visual clues need to be clearly enough visible in the first place. Which goes better on a large screen than on a little one, unescapably. In the same way that the humongously dumbed-down ‘models’ that bankers and like w…kers use, are over by a stretch in their simplification of reality (and, stupidly, then taken as normative, prescriptive rather than descriptive in intent), visual interfacing for the mob-ile users are oversimplified to the uselessness side. Why??

Because [ I say so ] and [ hypes go that way ]. Lazy evaluation.
Which leads to: Not one size is too small to fit any, but all sizes are made fit for the content purpose. Maybe not even display when the deep message can’t be captured in too small a message display ..?

A bit deep, or dense, maybe. Hence:

[Circus, b/c you need bread; Oak Park old analog pic]