Not reverse logic (“Bring your umbrella so it will not rain”) being mere (non-existent! you ontological dimwit) causation inversion, but time-inversed thinking. Like this article (shall we stop calling blog posts or long reads anything else than the thing they were before ARPAnet ..?) which has it the wrong way around from this one. Snicker smuck.
When discussing Risk …
There will always at some stage turn up a discussion (or multiple, if you’re Lucky; not) about the meaning of certain key words. Which is a pity, because … no, not because it distracts. Though it does, the main issue is that the secondary, meta, discussion about vocabularies is never / rarely resolved.
At strategic levels, talk is about risk appetite and risk tolerance, and foremost about business opportunities (of which the exitement is) spoiled by “risk managers” that point out the world might not be perfect and hence one is all but certain not to achieve the objectives. Smart business leaders push forward anyway, at best keeping the risks in the back of their heads while sanding off the rough edges of progress at that goes along all quite well. When strategies turn out to fail: Well, such is life as it has been since the dawn of humanity.
At tactical levels, talk is about risk portfolios and … not much, really; mostly project and program risks. Of the Boy Cried Wolf kind.
At operational levels, quasi-(sic!) quants do their stuff and come with all sorts of fabulous fables of formulas that wouldn’t stand scrutiny at the most basic of math levels. What idi.t would translate ‘High’ to ‘5’ and then multiply it with some other ‘4.5’ to arrive at a ‘22.5’ “risk” ..!? Heat maps are the reflection of the own moronic brain functioning onto what are supposed to be Managers’ levels of understanding. Though the outcome is correct, the origin of the reflection should be kept in mind instead of forgotten.
And all talk about ‘risk’ (‘operational risk’, even worse), ‘impact’, ‘High’, as though these were somewhat the same thing for all involved, disregarding most of time- and situation-variance or rather completely -determination. Right. Wrong. Just regurgitating definitions from ISO standards demonstrates to not understand the nature of the problem…
So, we have the first little probes of TDoS attacks (DoS-by-IoT). ‘Refrigereddon’.
As if that wasn’t predictable, very much predictable, and predicted.
[Edited to add: And analysed correctly, as here.]
Predicted it was. What now? Because if we don’t change course, we’ll achieve ever worse infra. Yes, security can be baked into new products — that will be somewhat even more expensive so will not swarm the market — but for backward compatibility in all the chains out there already, cannot be relied upon plus there’s tons of legacy equipment out there already (see: Healthcare, and: Utilities). Even when introducing new, fully securable stuff, we’re heading into a future where the Legacy issue will grow for a long time and much worse than it already is, before (need to be) huge pressure will bring the problem down.
Would anyone have an idea how to get this right, starting today, and all-in all-out..?
Some say self-driving cars / autonomous vehicles will take over driving as if they will take over all driving. But the intermediate phase [where autonomous persons and autonomous masters with slave (!) persons] will see ‘driving’ turn into a pastime, a hobby, of thrill seeker persons. Yes, even with Insurance rates getting somewhat higher. Not much higher, let alone skyrocketing, because the lone drivers that hold out, will find more and more very defensively behaving autonomous tin cans opposite them, scaring the latter (to steer) off the road…! Hence, aggressive drivers will not (provably) cause many accidents, autonomous vehicles will in all their panic. Hence, autonomous humans will not have staggering Insurance rates
and will keep on driving because of the fun of it, the feeling of independence and self-control, the thrill sought and found…
After human chess players could no longer win against ‘computers’, humans still play chess. After humans were outpaced by cars of all kinds, humans still try to win gold medals at the very event. After humans lost Jeopardy against Watson, humans still compete on ‘intelligence’ everywhere; opportunistically retreating ever further on the definition of ‘intelligence’.
Hence, humans will not drive ‘cars’ en masse, in the near+ future. But they will upgrade the purpose of driving, and will drive.
I sure will, for fun. With so many ‘lectric autonomous thingies on the road moving the sheeple, I’ll have or get myself all the road space I need… The road will belong to ME ME ME ..!
Tragedy causes discussions about freedom to carry opinion
October 18, 2016 by Hank Grohl
During a hurt at a university in Nebraska, 17 students have been insulted. The victims are all millennials that were attending a class on civil rights movements.
The hurter was a white, privileged man who worked as tenured professor of social history at the university. He is said to have just walked into a classroom where he started to fire off historical facts at students. Panic broke out immediately, but thirty students managed to flee the classroom. Even before the hurter could be arrested, he hurt himself.
This is not the first time that America wakes up to a hurting incident with insulting outcome. Even last month, in Colorado fifteen students were seriously hurt by a remark about gluten.
The Nebraska incident has yet again raised questions about the right to have an opinion. More and more Americans are are calling for limits to carry opinions.
[If you took the previous as a ridicule of gun violence atrocities: It is not. Maybe on the contrary, ridiculing whining over if-possible-less-than first world problems. Geddit now?]
[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]
About politicians and truth
May be incomplete.
Anyone noticed that IUs seem to make a thing of having replaced the clearly-archaic hourglass wait icon, with a spinning wheel — that was the Obvious part & mdash; but that the circle sometimes runs clockwise, sometimes counter-clockwise ..?
Part of the why is resolved, e.g., here, but the issue is that it seems to go all sorts of directions in/at all sorts of apps, sites, et al., as far as I can tell not seriously related to the linked explanation.
Yes, I’ve studied this here foundational theory, but also there, not much on directions. Didn’t even know Throbber was a thing.
Then, surely there’s an authoritative UX/GUI protocol (huh?) that has the definitive answers ..? Anyone ..? Oh well:
[Keeps on [ slipping, slipping, slipping | turning ], [ back to | into ] the
future circles; Stedelijk Amsterdam]
Where, similar to other areas of enticement (link and other posts on this blog), the idea of a level paying field not through the starting positions but through procedural justice, seems to want to jump over the weaving errors of our societies being the unevenness and inequality of the starting positions. Also eloquently explained (with a moral take-home) here. Typical in the RBC article above-linked, in the base (sic) of the great game of golf with its handicap system. But still; this doesn’t diminish the feelings of inequity, either on the non-compensated-for-bad-luck-starting-points side, or on the feeling-bad-for-having-lost-the-advantages-of-an-advantaged-starting-point side.
Wouldn’t wars be over and world peace break out when the problem that eluded some of the most eminent (economics- and others) thinkers, as here and certainly here and here, be solved ..? What transformation away from a bad one, would that require of the world society ..?
I’m seriously interested to hear any pointers and partial work already …
Just like that.
[Yes even my hero you can’t trust… Assignment for next month: Reflect on your organisation’s security posture.]
I’ve been dabbling in this pure-fiat money (sic) Gulden that is an attempt to indeed bring back the Dutch florin wink.
So far, I only put a toe into that water, and ’twas a profitable ride indeed. Should’ve moved all-in and retire…
Yes there’s all sorts of payment functionality but haven’t found a place to put that to use yet. Which made me think: Is there some sort of metric by which one can determine how ‘mature’ respective blockchain currencies are ..?
Like, some ratio that includes available volume, traded volume (exchange for (much longer) pre-existing traditional currencies), actual payments made for goods/services transactions, et al.
Or would anyone already have some (pointers to sufficiently secure-not-clickbait) sites that have such info and mdash; surely better factors and ratios than the above…?