Books by Quote – Page 4 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Integrity it is / ain't the quote

Given the recent upswing in attention for integrity, it is not strange but unfortunate to see the phrase and concept being so warped it has become a newspeak pastiche.

Integrity … taken as zealously chasing the company’s apparent only purpose… Integrity, taken as the ‘more than compliance’ ideal, then (almost exclusively) pursued in ways that seek only meek compliance with integrity rules [note the irony of ‘integrity’ and ‘rules’ other than in opposition] to get rid of the Dutch Uncles that without fail (yes) fail their own lessons.

Stemming of course from the misconception or more straighforward, lie that employees are only as integer as they align their efforts with the company’s objectives (when push comes to shove, profit being the only one that matters, don’t lie to me or to yourself or to the world ..!).

But then, you miss the mark. Even those that pursue their bizarre political aims through shooting up / blowing up as many totally innocent and irrelevant strangers, claim their integrity … not with the things you’d consider defensible but they do; in their warped-beyond-repair mind they act sincerely and with integrity to their (idiotic) ideas and morale, ethics.

On a less damaging note, re-study Bruce, e.g., as holiday present to ask for (from yourself ;-), and see that integrity may not be what you’re after after all. Integrity being on the side of, and of, the employees individually, for themselves. If they sell their expertise to some company, it’s only that that they can reasonably be expected to deliver, not all and their soul …!

All this, combined with the ridicule in:

“Integrity is a muscle you have to train every day”.

Which points out that apparently, every day you have to separately train (how?) integrity whereas the pool of metrics to determine the efficacy of the training is a vast desert (as it should; all that is of value, is immeasurable and vice versa) — and do you really need that much training; apparently people will daily find so many more detractors …!?

Plus, those that still cling to the above illogic (mult.) about integrity, may need to train their lung muscles every day in similar vein. Or not. Yes, if you’d really understand integrity, you’d see that it is a similar body function.

Oh well, plus:

[The aeons old fight of Order versus Chaos, often mistaken as Good versus Evil; Sevilla]

Throwback Thursday: Coke not (?) Classic

This Throwback Thursday (new category indeed — here), we start off with a Piece of Art, both qua visuals and musical score…
Of course, this can only be, and the title refers to, this. Click and admire.

We’re done.

You're not dumb

That’s why I agree so much with the first of this, and keep on ~~trucking~~ posting for the, hardly a, few reader(s) as per sub/secondhalf title of this. With the previous sentence demonstrating that thus.

OK, still with:

[For the views, with built (in) defences against the hoi polloi; Haut Köningsbourg]

Cyberprevention

Just a signal, of a new movement. Which isn’t.

For one, the -prevention — doomed from the [ word Go | – part ]. Which becomes less and less valid. Yes, some deterrent actions may help, but one better focus on the fact of future break-ins… And act accordingly — much more efficient for almost all. Take the 1st graph of this, and weep / go / the rest of it, too.
For two, ‘cyber’ … #ditchcyber nails it, in the Manifesto.

Yes that’ll be all for today, including:

[So, you can #ditchcyber, too]

Particular culture's greetings

Yep, that golden oldie once again, to all of you:

Rejoice, you the Puzzled

Unless you were doing stuff on Nocial Media (see tomorrow — never mind, I’m not one for linear Time), you may have missed or noticed (same) the release of a facsimile of one of the most veritable puzzles of the ages (Western world), in this here thing, which is posted here. Yeah, that’s how hyperlinks work, I kno, I kno.

So, now you the puzzlers AKA crytographers around the globe, may swoop down in even larger numbers than before, to crack the thing. Or, probably, not. And you knew about this whole thing.

Question: (Why | _ ) hasn’t already some Watson-class ~~frigate~~ AI tool (literally certainly not figuratively) been set loose on this ..? Lack of purpose? Of would it be a good ‘Turing test’ of sorts, if we test the capabilitites (learning/analysis time ..!?) of any AI tool, by the time it would take to make mincemeat out of the Manuscript — Duh-tch for tearing apart. Any attempt after the first successful, would need to be instructed not to find the solution out there on the ‘net, obviously (?) …

One may hope, may one not? And:

[Found it! This is what the Manu is about!!]

Dense, but study

All about this here article. Yes I too, started out as picture browser through this. But more careful study unearthed a lot of gold, qua understanding of the issues. Even to the point of pointing out some gaps, here and there — well, the understanding did, not as much the overview — in ‘moral continuums’, that can and should be filled.
And, much work can be done on opeationalising the Obvious breaches of fundamental human rights (as per Universal Declaration) so don’t go babbling about commerce needs a chance.

[And now for a switch of goal but you’ll find the relation …!]

Where the latter is one big part often missing with ‘disruptions’ quod non:
Doing something simply illegal is just that and is not ‘allowed’ because innovation should be allowed to be tested.
Innovation should not be attempted when the new has been determined already to be illegal
How hard can it be? Laws had been put in place to protect the weak against the powerful, specifically at points where the need was obviated. IF some law has no purpose anymore, one should first do away with it, first through political ways and if that wouldn’t work out to be possible, only then, through e.g., courts for obvious unfairness (sic; if your law system is of the common type you’re hosed anyway). When you don’t succeeed in this the only legal ways, too bad that’s how democracy works, if.
If some law still has purpose but there’s negative side effects you’d want to do away with, do away with the side effects not the law; in the two ways as before doofus!

Oh well. Mock disruptors beware; the world does not need nor welcome you.
And:

[Sometimes, Classics are perfect enough; Prague]

Sticky Wicked

I’ve been seeing ‘wicked problem’ turn up again lately. Again, hardly in its original sense let alone to the criteria. But rather, as problems where the counterforces to solutions are just too dug in against change, to be overcome. As human, societal problems rather than something systemically hard. To bulldozer over, with a MBT, maybe ..? What a fine demonstration of irritation to let loose.

And, of course:

Golden Oldie Pic of the Day

Just like that:

[Looks like banks have been reorganising profoundly, yes.]

Misquote: No Problem, or are you?

Don’t come to me with problems, only with solutions

Is wrong in so many ways…

When not if a manager would say such a thing, he denies his (her, not often enough) very job. Yes, the job of a manager in times of knowledge workers truly is what it was in times past, glorious as they were; “decision making under uncertainty”. Which has devolved into sickly-panic over any uncertainty that is inherent in results as future states;
So, workers — sounds too much like worker bees, working to their untimely death for the blip of glory of the Leader (quod non ..!) — should come to their bossy type or that empty vessel would have too little to do..?
When workers would come to their bossy types with problems and solutions, the latter would be degraded to secretaries of the collect-input-collate-and-report types. Because that would be what they’d do;
And not would they be the emperors in charge of Decision Making (preference ratification) over proposals (researched scenarios / preferences) to solve problems, as that suggests managers of this type, would have any inside knowledge. True, sometimes, very sometimes, one meets these old-style (old school is too old school) true managers that actually have the best of knowledge over the problem at hand, and knowledge of the environment, context and strategies surrounding and/or overarching the decision, at the same level as the workers doing the solutions research.
If the manager would really have better info on the latter categories than his workers, he’d have failed to give them proper information (mention not the risk of the atrocious destruction of humanity that micro management is) i.e. not delegated properly, for the scenarios of the workers would limp and be of greatly suboptimal quality to his decision making;
Rare then, would be the true manager, that has sufficient knowledge nay wisdom to know how much to decide himself and what swarms of decisions to delegate and sit as go-beween and stakeholder representative of his workers to other departments and upper regions, facilitating whatever goes around in his department;
Rare then, the manager that says, can handle: “Solve what you can and report the solutions via my business office; bring me not solutions but problems that need over-head resolution”. Not the mis-quote; they’d not say that which makes it the one deserved, righteous forms of humblebragging-by-remaining-silent allowed.

However rare … the quote is still a misquote. As so many are of the manager type of the first couple of bullets, and say the thing only when they intend to degrade themselves to the pitiful that don’t see their own empty-vesselness when uttering the quote.

Oh, and:

[If you think you’re in, you aren’t; Utrecht]